The Central Government's failure to consider and dispose of a detenu's representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution is a violation of the detenu's fundamental right.

N.L. Tibrewal, J.-In this writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner is assailing the validity and legality of the order of detention dated 15th June, 1994 passed against him by the Collector and District Magistrate, Bharatpur in exercise of power contained under Section 3(2) of National Security Act, 1980 (for short N.S.A.). The impugned order of detention has been challenged on various grounds inter alia, including that there was violation of the constitutional safeguards enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution in as much as the representation made by the petitioner through his mother Smt. Omwati to the President of India in the month of August 1994 has not been considered and disposed of

2. The order of detention (Anx. 1) was passed on June 15, 1994 by the Collector and District Magistrate, Bharatpur on the ground that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order his detention was necessary in pursuance to the order, he was arrested on June 16, 1994. On his arrest the order of detention, as well as, the grounds of detention were served on him. The State of Rajasthan approved the order of detention on June 24,1994 and reported the matter to the Central Government under Section 3(5) of N.S.A. In para Nos. 8 and 9 of the petition. It was alleged by the petitioner that he made a representation through his mother in the month of August 1994 to His Excellency the President of India with a prayer to revoke his illegal detention and the same was received in the Secretariat of the President, but it has not been considered and disposed of by the Central Government.

3. As stated earlier, the detention order has been assailed on a number of grounds, but, on the view that we take, it is not necessary to specify and deal with other grounds as we are satisfied that by non-consideration of petitioner’s representation referred above by the concerned authority his fundamental right as enshrined under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been infringed and on this ground alone this petition may be allowed.

4. In the present case, in answer to the notice issued by this Court, no return has been filed by the Central Government and there remain uncontroverted averments of the petitioner that his representation made to the President of India in the month of August 1994 has not been considered and disposed of It would be useful to state here that Mr. Suresh Pareek, Advocate had accepted the notice on behalf of the Union or India on 11-11-94 and prayed or two weeks time to file counter-affidavit. The matter was again listed in Court on 24-11-94 and it was adjourned to 5-12-94. On 5-12-94 Mr. vs. S. Gurjar, Advocate appeared for Mr. Suresh Pareek, Counsel for Union of India and requested for a short adjournment. The request was accepted and the petition was ordered to be listed on 7-12-94. On 7-12-94 Mr. S. S. Hasan. Advocate appeared for the Union of India and on joint request the matter was adjourned to 14-12-94. On 14-12-94 Mr. S. S. Hasan Advocate again appeared for Union of India and again prayed for adjournment. This Court passed the following order on that date:

“This habeas corpus petition was filed on 27-9-94. It was admitted on September 29, 1994 and notices were issued to the non-petitioners to be sent by Registered post. Then the matter was listed on November 11, 1994 and Mr. Suresh Pareek, Standing Counsel for respondent No. 6 accepted notice for the Union of India and prayed two weeks time to file counter-affidavit. Time was granted and November 29, 1994 was fixed. On 29th November, 1994 the matter was again adjourned to December 5, 1994. On this date, again time was sought on behalf of Mr. Suresh Pareek, learned Counsel for the Union of India. The matter was again listed on 7-12-94 and on a joint request it was listed today. Though, the State of Rajasthan has filed reply, but no reply has been filed on behalf of Union of India. No counter affidavit h