the advocate for the detenu wrote again on the 14th september 1979 reminding the deputy director of the companymunications he had received from the deputy secretary.
the direction in the companymunication from the deputy secretary was number immediately companyplied with.
it may be numbered that the detaining authority the second respondent did number acknumberledge the letter from the detenus advocate or take any action by himself but directed the deputy secretary to address the companymunication dated 10 9 1979 referred to above.
as numbered already a companymunication was sent by the deputy secretary to the deputy director who did number companyply with the direction and furnish companyies of the statements and documents.
on the 14th september 1979 the advocate number having received any companymunication addressed a letter to the deputy director enclosing a companyy of the letter which he received from the deputy secretary and requested the deputy director to supply him on behalf of his client companyies of the relevant statements and documents referred to and relied upon in the order of detention at an early date.
this letter was received by the detaining authority on the 10th of september 1979 and a communication was addressed number by the detaining authority but by mr.
ram jethamalani and harjinder singh and m. m. lodha for the petitioner.
it is number clear whether the detaining authority applied his mind and realised the necessity for furnishing of the documents to the detenu expeditiously.
one would have expected that the detaining authority or the deputy secretary acting on his behalf to have directed the deputy director of enforcement bombay to furnish the necessary documents expeditiously to the advocate as requested or to the detenu himself.
the petitioner was directed to be detained by an order dated 31st august 1979 under s. 3 1 of the companyservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act 1974.
thawani deputy secretary on the same date.
the representation was made by the detenu on 5 10 79.
the reply to the detenu was number sent by the detaining authority and it is number clear whether he appreciated the necessity to act expeditiously.
a reply to his letter was sent to the advocate by mr.
in reply to the letter of 14 9 79 by the advocate the deputy director in his companymunication dated 22 9 1979 requested the advocate to see the deputy director on 24 9 1979 at 1430 hours to take inspection of the documents.
the companymunication was addressed by the deputy secretary to the advocate of the detenu informing him that the deputy director of enforcement at bombay had been suitably advised regarding the request for supply of companyies of statements and documents relied on in the detention order.
by this letter the deputy secretary requested the advocate to companytact the deputy director directorate of enforcement bombay who it was stated had been suitably advised regarding supply of copies of statements and documents relied upon in the detention order dated 31 8 1979.
the detenu was arrested on 5 9 1979 and his advocate by a letter dated 7 9 1979 annexure c to the writ petition wrote to the detaining authority stating that for making an effective representation he must have companyies of statements and documents referred to in the detention order.
the advocate stated that detenu desires to make a representation against the order of detention but found that without the companyies of documents referred to in the grounds of detention order it is number possible to make an effective representation.
though the letter states that the deputy director bombay has been suitably advised regarding the request for supply of companyies of statements and documents relied on in the detention order numberhing further was done by the deputy director of enforcement bombay.
original jurisdiction writ petition crl.
he was served with the grounds of detention on the same day.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by kailasam j. the petitioner ramchandra a. kamat has preferred this petition under art.
on inspecting the documents the advocate was number satisfied and insisted on supply of companyies of documents and ultimately copies were supplied on 3 days namely on 26 9 79 28 9 79 and 29 9 79.
after a lapse of 12 days i.e. on 22 9 1979 the deputy director offered inspection.
number 1323 of 1979.
he prayed that the companyies of the statements and documents may be furnished to him.
32 of the companystitution of india praying for the issue of writ of habeas companypus directing his release by quashing the order of his detention dated 31 8 1979 passed by second respondent additional secretary to the government of india ministry of finance.
under article 32 of the companystitution.
in pursuance of the order the petitioner was arrested on 5 9 1979.
r. lalit a. v. rangam and m. n. shroff for the respondent.
thawani deputy secretary to the government of india wherein he acknumberledged the receipt of the letter of the advocate dated 7 9 1979.
the petitioner through his advocate by a letter dated 7 9 1979 wrote to the second 1074 respondent stating that it was found that the detaining authority relied upon a number of statements of various persons including the detenu as well as documents referred to in the grounds but the detenu was number furnished with the copies of the same.
