Detention law requires notice of the right to represent to the detaining officer before government approval.

Where a detention order is passed by an officer authorised under the Maharashtra Act but remains subject to State Government approval, the detenu must be informed that a representation can be made to that officer. A harmonious reading of sections 3, 8 and 14, read with section 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, shows that the officer continues to have power to revoke, modify or rescind the order until approval is granted. Failure to communicate that right deprives the detenu of a constitutional safeguard under article 22(5) and invalidates the detention order before approval.

---

---

Issues: Whether, when a detention order is made by an officer empowered under section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Act, failure to inform the detenu that a representation can be made to the detaining authority violates article 22(5) of the Constitution and invalidates the detention order until approval by the State Government.

Analysis: Under section 3(2) and section 3(3) of the Maharashtra Act, an officer authorised by the State Government may pass a detention order, but the order remains operative only for a limited period unless approved by the State Government within twelve days. Section 8(1) requires communication of the grounds and an earliest opportunity to make a representation to the State Government, while section 14(1), read with section 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, preserves the power to revoke, modify, vary, or rescind the detention order. A harmonious construction of these provisions shows that, until approval by the State Government, the officer who passed the order continues to retain the detaining authority's power to entertain a representation. Non-communication of that right therefore deprives the detenu of a valuable constitutional safeguard.

Conclusion: The omission to inform the detenu of the right to represent to the detaining authority, before approval of the order by the State Government, violates article 22(5) and renders the detention order invalid.

Final Conclusion: The detention orders were upheld as invalid and the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an officer-ordered detention remains subject to governmental approval, the detenu must be told of the right to represent to the officer who passed the order, because that officer continues to retain statutory power to revoke or modify the order until approval.

---