The revocation order must be a speaking order containing reasons, and the State Government is entitled to pass subsequent detention orders under the NSA.

A. Arumughaswamy, J.

1. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram, representing the State of Tamil Nadu, has come up with this writ petition challenging the orders dated 01.07.2013 and 22.08.2013 respectively in No.II/15027/12/2013-NSA passed by the 1st respondent -Secretary to Government, Home Affairs (Internal Security Department), Government of India, North Block, New Delhi, revoking the orders of detention vide D.O.No.81 of 2013 dated 10.05.2013 and D.O.No.102 of 2013 dated 03.07.2013 passed by the 3rd respondent -Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Public Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009, detaining the 2nd respondent/detenu under The National Security Act, 1980.

2. Though all the Habeas Corpus Petitions connected to the orders of detention relating to the 2nd respondent/detenu and a few other detenus have been listed together before this Court, at the request of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner; the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned senior counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/detenu that the writ petition may be taken up, at first, for disposal so that the right of the 2nd respondent/detenu can be effectively adjudicated upon and then only he will be in better position to advance his case in HCP No.815 of 2013, we have heard the writ petition at first and the same is being disposed of by this order.

3. The back ground of the facts of the case are that originally the 2nd respondent was detained by the 3rd respondent by order dated 10.05.2013 under the National Security Act, 1980. Challenging the order of detention, the 2nd respondent filed HCP No.815 of 2013. In the mean time, as per the provision contained in the NSA Act, the 3rd respondent within seven days of the order of detention reported the fact to the 1st respondent together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in the opinion of the State Government, had a bearing on the necessity for the order. Having considered all the materials placed before him including the order of detention, the 1st respondent by his order dated 01.07.2013 revoked the order of detention [first revocation order]. The 1st respondent communicated the same to the 3rd respondent by way of wireless message. For a moment, it is worth to note here that the 1st respondent has communicated only a telegraphic order (substance of the revocation order) and not the entire text of the order of revocation. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent has again detained the 2nd respondent/detenu by order dated 03.07.2013 under the National Security Act, 1980. Challenging the order of detention, the 2nd respondent filed HCP No.1379 of 2013. Again, as per the provision contained in the NSA Act, the 3rd respondent within seven days of the order of detention reported the fact to the 1st respondent as done earlier. Having considered the same, the 1st respondent again by his order dated 22.08.2013 revoked the order of detention [second revocation order] and communicated the same to the 3rd respondent. This time also the 1st respondent had communicated only a telegraphic order (substance of the revocation order) and not the entire text of the order of revocation. Thereafter, again the 3rd respondent by his order vide M1.D.O.NO.121/2013 dated 23/08/2013 detained the 2nd respondent/detenu under The National Security Act, 1980. Challenging the same, the 2nd respondent dentenu has filed HCP No.1778 of 2013. In the mean time, the State represented by its District Collector, has come up with this writ petition assailing the orders of revocation passed by the 1st respondent on 01.07.2013 and 22.08.2013 respectively on various grounds.

4. The point for consideration is:

(i) Whether the revocation order must be speaking order containing the reasons for revocation of the detention order has to be explained by the competent a