TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1559
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnment as per Ext. P7 Government Order, pursuant to the report dated 19.01.2016 made by the COFEPOSA Advisory Board. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who is the wife of the detenu, the learned State Attorney for the State of Kerala, the learned Central Government Counsel for the Union of India and the learned counsel appearing for the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. 3. Ext. P1, order of detention, was issued on 07.11.2015. The detenu, who was earlier arrested, had already been released on bail. Therefore, on the basis of Ext. P1 preventive detention order dated 07.11.2015, he was again arrested on 09.11.2015 and was admitted to the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram on 10.11.2015. Ext. P2, grounds....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the detenu is that Ext. P3 representation of the detenu was rejected by the State Government on 22.12.2015, i.e., after the case was referred for the opinion of the COFEPOSA Advisory Board on 03.12.2015 and before the COFEPOSA Advisory Board had given its opinion on 19.01.2016. We may also note in this context that the COFEPOSA Advisory Board convened on 07.01.2016 heard the detenu and his counsel on that day. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes specific reference to and relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India rendered by a Constitutional Bench in K.M. Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India and others (1991) 1 SCC 476] and followed by the Apex Court in order dated 03.06.2015 in Crl.A. No. 829 of 2015 [Golam B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder of detention. The second and the more important argument is that Ext. P3 was actually never a representation as could be understood in law inasmuch as all that was stated therein is that the detenu has not been served with the Malayalam version of the grounds of detention though he is not familiar with English language. Reference was made by the learned State Attorney to the decision of the Apex Court in Kirti Kumar Nirula v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 9 SCC 65 where the Apex Court approved the rejection of a representation which did not amount to a representation within the meaning of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. That was a principle which dealt with the representation which had neither his signature nor the date and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reason for his inability to do so; it being that he has not been served with the Malayalam version of the grounds of detention. Contemporaneous with Ext. P3, on the same day, the detenu has made two representations one to the Union of India and the another to the COFEPOSA Advisory Board. The opening paragraph of those representations states that he has with aid and advice prepared those representations in English language with which he is not familiar and that those representations are being sent through his brother. We say this at this point of time because adequacy or sufficiency of the grounds taken in a representation made for the purpose of Article 22(5) is not a matter which is justiciable on judicial scrutiny, unless of course there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of justice would not swing on its basis. We think that it is not necessary for us to dilate on that issue at all. This is because Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, going by a plain reading of its words, says, among other things, that the person who is detained in pursuance of an order of preventive detention shall be afforded the earliest opportunity of 'making a representation against the order. The phrase 'making a representation' and the term 'representation' in Sub-Article 5 of Article 22 of the Constitution have grown to gain life and blood through Judge made law, including the precedents we have quoted above. Where declaration of law has been made by the Supreme Court of India it is the law of the land i....