JUDGMENT

KAILASAM, J.:—The petitioner is the brother of Virendra Ambalal Siroya who was detained by an order of detention dated 31-8-1979 issued by Additional Secretary to the Government of India under S. 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detenu was served with the grounds of detention on 5-9-1979. The counsel for the detenu made an application on 17-9-1979 for supply of documents, and statements recorded and relied on in the grounds of detention. Before the documents were supplied, an incomplete representation was made by the detenu on 22-9-1979. The documents were supplied on 25-9-1979, 27-9-1979 and 3-10-1979. The detenu again made a second representation on 5-10-1979 and requested that the order of detention may be revoked by the Central Government.

2. Mr. A. K. Sen, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the representation requesting the Central Government to order the revocation under S. 11 of the Act was not forwarded by the detaining authority to the Central Government and as such the detention is illegal. In the memorandum of grounds in his writ petition at paragraph XIV the detenu submitted that, he made representation to the Central Government and that the Central Government had not considered the representation at all. In paragraph XV the detenu contended that the second representation was an application for revocation under Section 11 of the Act wherein he specifically requested that the Central Government should revoke the order. The said representation was not considered by the Central Government. It was submitted that non-consideration of the representation by the Central Government vitiated the detention order. In reply the detaining authority stated in paragraph 15 as follows :-

"It is submitted that the consideration of representation of the detenu by the detaining authority is perfectly valid and legal and in accordance with the law. It is, however, denied that merely because it was not considered by the Central Government, the detention order is vitiated in any way."

3. It is clear from the statement that the representation was not forwarded to the Central Government. The plea on behalf of the detaining authority is that merely because the representation was not considered by the Central Government, the detention order would not be vitiated.

4. The representation of the detenu dated 5-10-1979 is marked as Annexure E. It states that it is a further representation in the matter of his detention. After setting out the various grounds, the relief asked for in paragraph 5 runs as follows :-

"The petitioner prays that :

(a) That the order of detention be revoked by the Central Government.

(b) This further representation be placed before COFEPOSA Advisory Board along with the earlier representation.

(c) That the Advisory Board be pleased to report to the Central Government to revoke the impugned order of detention."

5. The request of the detenu is clear : He prayed for the revocation of the order of detention by the Central Government. It is not the case of the detaining authority that he did not understand the representation as being intended for the Central Government. On the other hand, his plea is that the mere fact that the Central Government has not considered the representation would not vitiate the order of detention. The detaining authority is the Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance and it is not disputed that a communication to the Central Government can be properly addressed by sending it to the Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance.

6. It is admitted that the representation was properly addressed to the Central Government. The Central Government is empowered to revoke the order of detention at any stage. It was submitted that the order of revocation by the Central Government can only be passed after the order of detention is confirmed by the detaining authority and the Advisory B