Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 16899 MP
Judgement Date : 20 December, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
ON THE 20 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
REVIEW PETITION No. 1289 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
MAYANK SINGHAL S/O SHRI ASHOK SINGHAL
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O 12/3, PARSI MOHALLA,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) THROUGH HIS
MATERNAL UNCLE SHRI RAJESH GOYAL
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAVINDRA SINGH CHHABRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONGWITH
MUDIT MAHESHWARI- ADVOCATE.
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR / DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MOTI
TABELA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION
RAUJI BAZAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( BY SHRI ADITYA GARG-ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for orders this day, JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
passed the following:
ORDER
The petitioner (detenue) has filed present Review Petition through his maternal uncle seeking review of order dated 28.11.2022 whereby Writ Petition
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN NAYAK Signing time: 21-12-2022 18:59:13
No.24478/2022 has been dismissed.
Shri Chhabra, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has dismissed the Writ Petition inter alia on the ground that Rajesh Goyal submitted the representations on behalf of the petitioner i.e. Annexure P/5 and Annexure P/6 only to meet the detenue in order to seek information and to initiate legal proceedings. The petitioner filed representation dated 17.10.2022 alongwith list of documents in the Writ Petition in which a request was made to revoke the order of detention passed against the detenue/Mayank Singhal. The Writ Court while dismissing the Writ Petition did not consider the aforesaid representation, hence, order is liable to be reviewed and writ petition be
allowed. In support of his contention, learned Senior counsel has placed reliance over the judgment passed in case of Ankit Ashok Jalan Vs. Union of India and others (2020) 16 SCC 127 in which, the Apex Court has held that the detenue has right to submit representation to the detaining authority and such authority ought to have considered the representation independently without waiting for the report of Central Advisory Committee. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the person detained has right to make representation to the said authority and the said authority obliged to consider the said representation and on failure on his part would result in denying of right conferred on the person detained to make representation.
In this case, admittedly, the detenue did not submit any representation after service of order of detention and grounds of detention. His maternal uncle submitted so called representation on 17.10.2022 to challenge the detention of the petitioner. The detenue was served with the detention order and grounds on 19.10.2022 but the same were not in the knowledge of Shri Rajesh Goyal on 17.10.2022 as he met the detenue on 01.11.2022. The detenue did not submit Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN NAYAK Signing time: 21-12-2022 18:59:13
any representation from jail against the order of detention. The authority to take legal recourse was given to Rajesh Goyal only after meeting on 01.11.2022 who is neither the parents nor brother or sister of the petitioner to submit representation to the detaining authority. The representation dated 17.10.2022 was submitted by Shri Rajesh Goyal without obtaining the copy of detention order and grounds cannot be said to be statutory right to submit the representation against the order of detention. In case of Ankit Ashok Jalan (supra) the Apex Court has held that '' the detenue'' has right to submit the representation. Even otherwise, the aforesaid representation was submitted before receiving the order of detention by a person concerned as Shri Rajesh Goyal was permitted to meet petitioner after 01.11.2022 whereas petitioner had been provided order of detention on 11.10.2022, therefore, representation submitted by Shri Rajesh Goyal without examining the order of detention and grounds of detention. Even otherwise copy of representation was not filed alongwith Writ Petition, therefore, the respondent had no occasion to comment the same in the reply. The petitioner has mentioned about this representation in para 5.8 and marked as Annexure P/5 but filed copy of representation dated 19.10.2022 in which he sought permission to meet the detenue to seek necessary information and take appropriate legal proceedings on behalf of detenue, therefore, on 17.10.2022, Shri Rajesh Goyal was not having any
authority by the detenue to submit representation on his behalf. Thus the review petition is misconceived and dismissed accordingly.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
NAYAK
Signing time: 21-12-2022
18:59:13
JUDGE JUDGE
Praveen
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
NAYAK
Signing time: 21-12-2022
18:59:13
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!