The detaining authority is obligated to inform the detenu of his right to make a representation not only to the appropriate Government but also to the Central Government, as the Central Government has the power to revoke the detention order under Section 14 of the Act.

( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges his detention order dated 31/08/1995 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (the Act) passed by the District Magistrate, Hamirpur. The ground of detention is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The detention order has been passed only on the basis incident dated 1/07/1995, which took place inside the District Court Campus, in which the petitioner was main conspirator. In that incident one Brijendra Pratap Singh, Advocate, was murdered by the hired professional criminals, namely, Deepak Raj and Ajai. Due to the said murder the persons present inside the campus, including officers and litigants started running helter-skelter to save their lives. Even the judicial proceedings were paralysed and the peace and tranquility was affected. According to the counter affidavit filed by the detaining authority he passed the detention order on the basis of the report of the sponsoring authority on the basis of relevant material and after being fully satisfied. First information report of the said incident is dated 1/07/1995 in case Crime No. 194 of 1995. The detaining authority in passing the detention order has confined to only incident dated 1/07/1995, though reference was made to various other criminal activities of the petitioner. The detaining authority specifically averred that in passing the detention orderhe had only confined to the aforesaid one incidence.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was taken into custody on the 2/07/1995 in the aforesaid case crime in pursuance to the custody warrant issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur. While in detention the aforesaid detention order dated 31/08/1995, along with the grounds of detention (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) was served on him. Thereafter the petitioner submitted his representation against the detention order on 18/09/1995, which was forwarded through the District Magistrate on 19/09/1995. The State Government rejected the same on the 30/09/1995, about which the petitioner was informed on the 1/10/1995. 11th October, 1995, was the the date fixed before the Advisory Board on which date detenu was produced before it and was heard in person. The detention order dated 31/08/1995, was sent to the Government, which was received on 4/09/1995 and was approved by the State Government on the 7/09/1995. A reference by the same was made to the Government of India under Section 3 (5) of the Act on the 8/09/1995, and to the Advisory Board under Section 10 of the Act.

( 3 ) ON these facts, the petitioner has confined his argument only on one ground, namely the obligation cast on the respondent authority to intimate the detenu that he can make representation not only to the State Government but also to the Central Government was violated as no such intimation was given to the detenu, hence is violative of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. It is not in dispute that no such intimation was given to the detenu that he can make representation to the Central Government, hence the detenu made representation only to the State Government.

( 4 ) REPELLING this contention for the petitioner the argument for the State Government is that in view of Section 8 (1) of the Act obligation to inform the detenu for making representation is only to the appropriate Government and appropriate Government as defined under Section 2 (a) of the Act is Government which passed detention order, which is the State Government in the present case. This apart, further contention is, in any case, no prejudice could be said to have been caused to the petitioner as, in fact, the said representation of the petitioner dated 18/10/1995, a copy of the same was also sent to the Government of India on the 7/09/1995.

( 5 ) FOR the petitioner argument is State cannot take defence of any prejudice in a case where not doing an act amounts violation of constitutional right. It was obligatory for the State to have intimated the detenu. Admittedly