The right to make representation under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution includes the right to make representation before the authority who has power to revoke the order of detention. The detaining authority has a corresponding duty to communicate to the petitioner about the right to make the representation to the Central Government, so that the detenu could avail of this right.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, Ishaq, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondent to set him at liberty.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has been detained in District Jail, Meerut, pursuant to an order passed on 3-10-1995 by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under sub-Section (3) of Section 3of that Act in order to prevent him from indulging in an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. A copy of that order is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Along with the order of detention, grounds of detention (Annexure 2) were also served on the petitioner. The grounds may be summarised as under :on 13-9-1995 on the public road in Mohalla Kailash Nagar, District Ghaziabad, which is densely populated by Hindus and Mohammadans, you at 8. 30 p. m. , along with your associates, Nasir Ali, Ayub, Harun, Mahboob, Maharaj and Julley murdered Naresh by shooting at him by a revolver and country-made pistols and when people in the mohalla tried to check you in your activity, you created an atmosphere of fear and terror by firing in the air, were successful in making good your escape from the scene of occurrence. As a result of your acts, shop-keepers closed their shops and ran away and traffic came to a standstill. There was a complete breach of public order in the area. First information report of the incident was lodged by Smt. Ram Adhari, mother of the deceased, as a result of which a case was registered against you under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 114, I. P. C. A situation of communal tension was created and in view of this communal tension two platoons of C. R. P. were got summoned and with their assistance and also the assistance of the other police force effort was made to bring about public order. This incident was reported in the newspapers on 13-9-1995 and 14-9-1995 and the situation started normalising from 16-9-1995. On account of the increase of pressure of the police, you surrendered in court on 18-9-1995. An application for bail moved by you was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad. Thereafter, an application has been filed before the Sessions Court in which 5-10-1995 is fixed and there is every likelihood of your being released on bail. By the acts indulged in by you and your associates on 13-9-1995 a situation of communal tension has been created and public order has been breached and there is every likelihood that after being released on bail you will again indulge in acts which may result in breach of public order. I am satisfied that in order to prevent you from indulging in acts which may be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to detain you. You may make representation against your detention to the State Government through Home Secretary. You are also informed that your matter will be referred to the Advisory Board under Section 10 of the Act. You are also informed that if you want to be heard personally by the Advisory Board you should make a mention about it in your representation or you may inform the State Government through the Superintendent of Jail.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has alleged in the writ petition that the Central Government has the power under Section 14 of the Act to revoke the order of detention and so he had a right to make representation to the Central Government, but he was deprived of exercising this right as he was never informed of such right. Some other grounds have also been taken in the petition but they were not pressed at the time of arguments and, therefore, it is not necessary to make a mention of them.

( 4 ) ONE counter-affidavit has been filed by Dr. B. P. Nilaratna, District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, who passed the detention order. He has deposed that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the mainten