- (1.) BY the Court. -In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the orders of his detention dated 22.6.2011 and subsequent orders passed under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act. 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short).
(2.) THE short question raised on behalf of petitioner is that in the detention order dated 22.6.2011 the petitioner was not apprised that he had right to make representation before the detaining authority -Deputy Commissioner -cum -District Magistrate, Chatra, also though the petitioner was informed that he could place his written representation, if any, to the State Government, through Superintendent of Jail, Chatra. In support of this submission reliance was placed on the judgment reported in AIR 2000 SC 2504, State of Maharashtra v. Santosh Shankar Acharya, in which it was inter -alia held that: "The only logical and harmonious construction of the provisions of the Act would be that in a case where an order of detention is issued by an officer, under Section 3(2) notwithstanding the fact that he is required to forthwith report the factum of detention together with the grounds and materials to the State Government and notwithstanding the fact that the Act itself specifically provides for making a representation to the State Government under Section 8(1), the said detaining authority continues to be the detaining authority until the order of detention issued by him is approved by the State Government within a period of 12 days from the date of issuance of detention order. Consequently, until the said detention order is approved by the State Government the detaining authority can entertain a representation from a detenu and in exercise of his power under the provisions of Section 21 of Bombay General Clauses Act could amend, vary or rescind the order, as is provided under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Act. Such a construction of powers would give a full play to the provisions of Section 8(1) as well as Section 14 and also Section 3 of the Maharashtra Act. This being the position, non -communication of the fact to the detenu that he could make a representation to the detaining authority so long as the order of detention has not been approved by the State Government in a case where an order of detention is issued by an officer other than the State Government under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Act would constitute an infraction of a valuable right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution."
(3.) IT is further submitted that the provisions considered in the said case are in para materia with the provisions of the Act and the Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act and therefore, relying on the said judgment another judgment reported in 2008 (I) East Cr C 18 (Pat), Binod Yadav v. State of Bihar, has been relied upon.;