A representation to the Chief Minister cannot be construed as a representation made to the State Government unless it raises the question of validity of the detention order or contains a prayer for its revocation.

Janarthanam, J.

Pattammal (Petitioner) is the wife of the detenu S. Rajangam. The detenu, it is said, is a bootlegger. Apart from the ground case, as set out in the grounds of detention, the detenu had come to adverse notice in seven other cases. The District Magistrate and Collector, Nagai-Quaide-Milleth District, Nagapattinam (First respondent), in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 clamped upon the detenu the impugned order of detention in his proceedings COC No.5/94 dated 30.1.1994 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and health.

2. Mr. K. Manivasakam, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would press into service a lone and sole ground viz., that the representation sent to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu had not at all been considered and disposed of till upto date and in that view of the matter, the impugned order of is liable to be set aside.

3. Mr. R. Raghupathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondents, would however, repel such a submission and produce the relevant file for perusal and consideration by this Court.

4. A perusal of the file reveals that no representation stated to have been sent to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu had ever been received.

.5. In the affidavit filed in support of the present action, the petitioner had however taken ground No.(e) as reflected below:

.“The detaining authority ought to have considered my representation. But it was not considered even though I made a representation in the month of March.

.6. From what has been extracted above, it is rather crystal clear that the representation was stated to have been sent to the detaining authority viz., the first respondent District Magistrate and Collector and not to the Chief Minister of Tamilnadu. However, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would produce before us a xerox copy of the representation stated to have been sent by one Pattammal said to be the wife of the detenu, to the Chief Minister along with an acknowledgment. From a perusal of the said copy of the representation, we are unable to decipher the date, on which the representation had been sent to the Chief Minister. Even by a perusal of the acknowledgment card produced before us, we are able to find a seal of the office of the Chief Minister containing only the date and not even the month or the year. A cursory perusal of such representation reveals that the wife of the detenu craved for the mercy of the Chief Minister to release her husband, the detenu from prison, in as much as she and her children were starving as a consequence of her husband, the bread winner, had been detained under Act 14/82.

7. The moot question, in such a situation, that crops up for consideration is as to whether the so-called representation stated to have been sent to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu must be construed as a representation made to the State Government. The further question that crops up for consideration is that if the same is to be construed as a representation made to the State Government, whether such a representation is in the proper form.

8. In answer to those two questions, our attention had been drawn to certain decisions of the apex court of this country, besides the salient provisions adumbrated under section 3(60) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (for short ‘Act 1987’). defining “State Government”.

9. We shall now proceed to consider them. Section 3 (60) of Act 1897 defines “State Government” as below.

.a. .......

.b. .......

.c. as respect anything done or to be done after the commencement of the constitution (seventh amendment) Act, 1956, shall mean, in a State, the Governor, and in a Union territory, the Central Government.......

.10. From what has been extracted above, it is rather crystal clear that State Government in a State shall mean the Governor and none else. On the face of s