Failure to inform detenu of right to represent to detaining authority vitiates preventive detention order.

Failure to inform the detenu that a representation could also be made to the detaining authority vitiated the preventive detention order. The detenu was told only that representations could be submitted to the State Government and the Central Government, but omission of the detaining authority from the advisory communication was treated as a fatal defect. The HC followed the consistent view of prior Division Benches and declined to refer the matter to a larger Bench. The detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was therefore held invalid and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was liable to be quashed for failure to inform the detenu that a representation could also be made to the detaining authority.

Analysis: The detention order was passed under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detenu was informed only that a representation could be made to the State Government and the Central Government, but not that a representation could be made to the detaining authority. The omission was treated as fatal. The Court declined to refer the matter to a larger Bench and followed the consistent view taken by several Division Benches that such non-communication vitiates the detention.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid and liable to be quashed.

---