Criminal Appeal No 57 of 1984
From the Judgment and Order dated 25 10 1983 of the Allahabad High Court in Habeas Corpus WP
No 8420 of 1983
Manjo Swarup and Dalveer Bhandari for the appellant
Mrs  Mr Qamaruddin Rizwan A Hafiez and Desh Raj for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN J
The State Government of Uttar Pradesh has preferred this appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated October 25 1983 by which the High Court issued a writ in the nature of habeas corpus quashing an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate Moradabad dated November 6 1982 for the detention of the respondent under sub section
3 of section 3 of the on being satisfied that his detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public order
 It appears that the respondent is alleged to have committed an offence of murder punishable under section 302 and of causing disappearance of evidence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 in connection with the communal riots that occurred in the Moradabad city
On November 6 1982 the District Magistrate Moradabad passed the impugned order of detention but it could not be served on the respondent as he was absconding
As required under sub section
4 of section 3 the District Magistrate forthwith made a report of the fact to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh that he had passed an order for the detention of the respondent under sub section
3 of section 3 of the Act together with the grounds on which the order had been made and such other particulars as in his opinion had a bearing on the matter
The State Government received the order of detention on November 8 1982 and approved of the same on November 11 1982 under sub section
5 of section 3 and as required thereunder forwarded a report to the Central Government on the next day ie On November 12 1982
The respondent surrendered to the police on May 24 1983 and the impugned order of detention was served on him in District Jail 792 Moradabad on June 1 1983 and the grounds of detention were furnished to him on June 2 1983
The respondent made a representation dated June 18 1983 through the Superintendent District Jail Moradabad and he immediately forwarded the same to the District Magistrate
On June 20 1983 the District Magistrate forwarded the representation to the Advisory Board and the same was received by the Advisory Board on June 21 1983
The State Government had in the meanwhile on June 131983 made a reference to the Advisory Board under section 10 of the Act ie within three weeks from the date of detention together with the order of detention and the grounds therefore for its opinion
On June 23 1983 the representation of the respondent forwarded by the District Magistrate together with his comments was examined by the Joint Secretary Home Department
The file was placed before the Home Secretary on June 27 1983 who placed it before the Chief Minister with his comments
The Chief Minister took two days to study the file and ultimately passed an order rejecting the representation on June 30 1983
On July 2 1983 the State Government forwarded the representation made by the respondent together with its comments to the Government of India and the Central Government rejected the same on July 19 1983
On July 5 1983 the respondent through his counsel DS Misra simultaneously addressed two representations for revocation of his detention under section 14 of the Act one addressed to the Prime Minister of India and the other to the State Government
It appears that the representation made to the Central Government addressed in the name of the Prime Minister was received in the Prime Minister Secretariat on July 7 1983 and the grievance of the respondent was that the Central Government had not dealt with his application for revocation of the order of detention under section 14 even now
In his counter affidavit by one ML Miglani Desk officer Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi it was stated that the Central Government had fully discharged its functions by expeditiously taking a decision on the earlier representation directly ad dressed by the respondent and it was under no statutory obligation to consider the subsequent representation for revocation addressed by the respondent through his counsel to the Prime Minister
I was not a statutory representation for revocation of the impugned 793 order of detention under section 14 and therefore it was not at all necessary for the Central Government to deal with it
The High Court placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Phillippa Anne Duke vs State of Tamil Nadu  Ors and certain of its own decisions held that the respondent had a right to make an application to the Central Government for revocation of the order of detention and the failure on the part of the Central Government to apply its mind to it made the continued detention illegal
The only question canvassed in the appeal before us is that the judgment of the High Court betrays complete lack of awareness a of the nature of the constitutional safeguards enshrined under article 225 of the Constitution
It is urged that the constitutional imperatives enacted in article 225 are two fold 1 The detaining authority must as soon as maybe ie as soon as practicable after the detention communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order of detention has been made
And 2 The detaining authority must afford the detenu the earliest opportunity of making representation against the order of detention
In the present ease it is said that the requirements of article 225 of the Constitution read with section 81 of the Act had been duly complied with
There is no question of any violation of article 225 or of section 81 and further that the grounds for detention set out the facts with sufficient degree of particularity and they did furnish sufficient nexus for forming the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority
The order of detention cannot therefore be challenged on the ground that the grounds furnished were not adequate or sufficient for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority or for making an effective representation
It is further urged that there being due compliance with the constitutional requirements of article 225 and of section 81 the High Court was wrong in holding that the continued detention of the respondent was invalid merely because the Central Government refused to act on his application for revocation of the order of detention under section 14 of the act
We find considerable force in the submission
We are not oblivious of the fact that this Court has in certain cases given expression to the view that any lapse on the part of the State Government in forwarding the representation made for revo 794 cation of his order of detention under s111b of the COFEPOSA Act 1974 or the failure of the Central Government to expeditiously consider the same was a denial of the constitutional right of being afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order as contemplated by article 225
At one time it was thought that section 14 of the which was in pari materia with section 14 of the Act did not confer any right or privilege on the detenu but there is a definite shift in the judicial attitude for which there appears to be no discernible basis
In Shyam Ambalal Siroya vs Union of India  Ors the contention was that because a representation properly addressed to the Central Government to order revocation under section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act was not forwarded by the detaining authority to the Central Government the detention was illegal
The Court construed the power conferred on the Central Government to direct revocation of an order of detention under section 11 of that Act to be statutory
It was observed that the power of the Central Government to revoke the order of detention implies that the detenu can make a representation for exercise of that power and a petition for revocation of an order of detention should be dealt with reasonable expedition
Since a representation properly addressed by the detenu of the Central Government was not forwarded to the Central Government the continued detention of the detenu was held to be illegal
In Sabir Ahmed vs Union of India  Ors the Court held that non consideration by the Central Government of a representation for revocation made by the detenu under section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act made the continued detention to be bad following the decision in Shyam Ambalal Siroya s case supra
It was however observed that the power conferred by section 11 on the Central Government was a supervisory power and it was intended to be an additional check or safeguard against the improper exercise of its power of detention by the detaining authority or the State Government
In Rattan Singh vs State of Punjab  Ors the Court went still further
There was in that case a lapse on the part of the State Government in forwarding the representation simultaneously made by the detenu to the Central Government for revocation of the order of detention under section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act
The 795 Court struck down the order of detention on the ground that there was a denial of the right of making representation to the Central Government for revocation of the order of detention under section 11 of the Act and this was tantamount to a denial of the constitutional safeguard of article 225
Soon thereafter the Court in Sat Pal vs State of Punjab  Ors examined the nature of the power of revocation conferred on the Central Government under section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act and held that it was supervisory in nature and it was observed That is as it should be under our federal structure the Centre must always keep a vigilant eye in the matter of life and liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Article 21
Ours is a Constitution where there is a combination of federal structure with unitary features while in a unitary State there is only one Government federal State involves multi Governments namely national or federal Government and the Governments of component States
A federal State in short is a fusion of several States into a single State in regard to matters affecting common interest leaving each component State to enjoy autonomy in regard to other matters
Under our Constitution certain powers vest in the Central Government leaving certain to its component units to exercise autonomy in spheres assigned to them in the Constitution itself
The component States are 
not merely delegates or agents of the federal Government
Both federal and State Governments draw their authority from the same source the Constitution The conferment of executive power on the States in relation to a subject with respect to which the legislatures of the States have no power to make a law under article 2582 must necessarily be subject to the administrative control of the Union under articles 256 and 2471 to the giving of such directions to the States as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose
 It was then observed that the constitutional imperatives of article 225 enjoin that where a detenu simultaneously makes a re 796 presentation to the detaining authority as well as an application for revocation under section 11 of the Act they must both be dealt with by the appropriate Government at the same time and there was no question of any conflict of jurisdiction
To illustrate it was said that if the Central Government were to revoke an order of detention under section 11 of the Act there would be no representation for the State Government to consider or refer the Advisory Board under section 8b nor will there arise any question of Advisory Board submitting a report to it or on receipt of such a report confirming the order of detention under section 8f
It was further observed that the other types of cases would be where notwithstanding that the order of detention has been confirmed under section 8f the appropriate Government may at any time revoke the same under section 11 of the Act
It was accordingly held that the power of revocation conferred on the appropriate Government under section 11 is independent of the power of confirming or setting aside an order of detention under section 8f
As to the nature of the power of revocation conferred on the Central Government under section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act it was stated The making of an application for revocation to the Central Government under section 11 of the Act is therefore part of the constitutional right a citizen has against this detention under a law relating to preventive detention
While article 225 contemplates the making of a representation against the order of detention to the detaining authority which has to be referred by the appropriate Government to the Advisory Board constituted under section 8a of the Act Parliament has in its wisdom enacted section 11 and conferred an additional safeguard against arbitrary executive action
The principle that emerges from all these decisions is that the power of revocation conferred on the Central Government under section 14 of the Act is a statutory power which may be exercised on information received by the Central Government from its own source including that supplied by the State Government under sub section
5 of section 3 or from the detenu in the form of a petition or representation
It is for the Central Government to decide whether or not it should revoke the order of detention in a particular 797 case In the present case the detenu was not deprived of the right of making a representation to the detaining authority under article 225 of the Constitution read with section 81 of the Act
Although the detenu had no right to simultaneously make a representation against the order of detention to the Central Government under article 225 and there was no duty cast on the State Government to forward the same to the Central Government nevertheless the State Government forward the same forthwith
The Central Government duly considered that representation which in effect was nothing but a Representation for revocation of the order of detention under section 14 of the Act
That being so it was not obligatory on the part of the Central Government to consider a second representation for revocation under section 14
We may profitably refer to Phillippa Anne Duke s case supra where in somewhat similar circumstances it was held that failure of the Central Government to consider a representation for revocation of an order of detention under section 111b of the COFEPOSA Act handed over to t he Prime Minister during her visit to England did not render the continued detention invalid
It was observed Representations from whatever source addressed to whomsoever officer of one or other department of the Government cannot be treated as a representation to the Government under section 118b of the COFEPOSA Act
 The result therefore is that the appeal succeeds and is allowed
The judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate under sub section
3 of section 3 of the is maintained
SR Appeal allowed


Summary:
The facts are that the respondent made a representation dated June 18 1983 against an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate Moradabad dated November 6 1982 for his detention under sub section
3 of section 3 of the  and the same was duly forwarded by the District Magistrate to the Advisory Board on June 21
The State Government had in the mean while on June 13 1983 made a reference tn the Advisory Board under section 10 of the Act ie within three weeks from the dale of detention together with the order of detention and the grounds therefor for its opinion
On June 23 1983 the representation was examined by the Joint Secretary Home Department who marked the file to the Home Secretary on June 27 1983 who on his turn placed the file before the Chief Minister for his comments on June 27 1983
The Chief Minister took to days to study the file and ultimately passed an order rejecting the representation
On July 2 1983 the State Government forwarded the representation made together with the comments to the Government of India and the Central Government rejected the same on July 19 1983
It appears that on July S 1983 the respondent through his counsel simultaneously addressed two representations for revocation of his detention under section 14 of the Act one addressed to the Prime Minister of India and the other to the State Government
The representation made to the Central Government addressed in the name of the Prime Minister was received in the Prime Minister s Secretariat on July 7 1983 and the grievance of the respondent before the High Court was that the Central Government had not dealt with his application for the revocation of the order of detention under section 14 of the Act
The High Court observed that the right of the detenu to make a representation to the Central Government for revocation of the order of detention under section 14 of Act was intended to be an additional check or safeguard against the improper exercise of its power of detention by the detaining authority or the State Government and therefore the failure on the part of the Central Government to consider the same was tantamount to a denial of the constitutional safeguard as contemplated by article 225 790 of the Constitution
It accordingly held the continued detention of the respondent to be illegal
Aggrieved by the order the State preferred an Special Leave
Allowing the appeal the Court  HELD 1 The constitutional imperatives of article 225 enjoin that where a detenu simultaneously makes representation to the detaining authority as well as an application under section 14 of the Act they must not be dealt with by the appropriate Government at the same time and there was no question of any conflict of jurisdiction
If the Central Government were to revoke the order of detention under section 14 of the Act there would be no representation for the State Government to consider or refer to the Advisory Board under section 8b of the Act nor will there arise any question of Advisory Board making a report to it or on receipt of such a report confirming the order of detention under section 8f
The other type of cases can be where notwithstanding that the order of detention has been confirmed under section 8f the appropriate Government may at any time revoke the same under section 14
The power of revocation conferred on the appropriate Government under section 14 is independent of the power of confirming or setting aside an order or detention under section 8f 795H 796A D 2
The power of revocation conferred on the Central Government under section 14 of the Act is a statutory power which may be exercised on information received by tile Central Government from its own sources including that supplied by tile State Government under sub section
5 of section 3 or from the detenu in the form of a petition or representation
It is for the Central Government to decide whether or Dot it should revoke the order of detention in a particular case
796G H Any lapse on the part of State Government in forwarding the representation made by the detenu to the Central Government for revocation of the order of detention under section 14 of the Act or non consideration of the same by the Central Government makes the continued detention of the detenu bad
793B C In the present case however the detenu was not deprived of the right of making a representation to the detaining authority under article 225 of the Constitution read with section 81 of the Act
Although the detenu had no right to simultaneously make a representation against the order of detention to the Central Government under article 225 and there was no duty cast on the State Government to forward the same to the Central Government nevertheless the State Government forwarded the same forthwith
The Central Government duly considered that representation which in effect was nothing but a representation for revocation of the order of detention under section 14 of the Act
That being so
it was not obligatory on the parr of the Central Government to consider a second representation for revocation under section 14 of the Act
797A D 791