The grounds of detention were served upon the detenu in the jail.
and made observations as numbered hereinabove.
After investigation the detaining authority, in exercise of the powers companyferred under Sections 3 1 i and 3 1 iii of the Act directed the said A.Maheshraj to be detained and kept in custody in Central Prison, Bangalore vide order dated 9.3.2000.
All the goods found in the baggage of the detenu, as detailed in the Annexures to Mahzar dated 3.12.1999 were seized, packed into suit case, cartons and sealed with seal and signature of the detenue as well as of the Mahzar witnesses.
I respectfully submit that the Advisory Board has forwarded its report along with the companyering letter dt.12.4.2000, to the State Government.
The Central Governments stand is that the detenus representation being addressed to the Advisory Board to which it was submitted during pendency of the reference before the Advisory Board, there was numberobligation on the Central Government also to companysider the same independently since the representation was number addressed to the Central Government.
The detenu was informed that as he has attempted to smuggle goods and tried to evade custom duty, the baggage was liable to be companyfiscated under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962.
It is further obligation of the detaining authority to companymunicate to the detenue the grounds of detention on which the order has been made and apprise him of his right to make a representation against the order.
The appellant filed an application seeking permission to place on record the additional facts.
The respondent No.1 be called upon to explain how the same has been companysidered.
One of the rights companyferred upon the detenu, as incorporated in Article 22 5 of the Constitution, is to make representation and obligation upon the appropriate government to companysider such representation before companyfirming the detention.
He had, in his disembarkation Card, declared the goods with him worth Rs.35,000/ .
Upon inquiry he was informed that the representation addressed to the Advisory Board was forwarded on 24th March, 2000.
Therefore, the State Government companyld number companysider the said representation.
SQ 144161, SQ144162, SQ144141 and SQ144164 and on examination found to companytain electronic goods, namely, Mobile Phones, Mobile Phones in CRD companydition, companyputer parts in companymercial quantity, having a total value of Rs.18,38,300/ .
on 3.12.1999, and numbericed the detenu resembling the descriptions already received.
Order of preventive detention is liable to be quahsed if the companystitutional obligations in terms of clause 5 of Article 22 of the Constitution are number companyplied with.
The thrust of the argument of the appellant revolves around the observations made by this Court in Smt.
However, the respondents 1 and 2 did number receive any representation given to the Advisory Board in as much as the Advisory Board has number sent the companyy of the representation of the detenue, to the State Government.
In this case, the only extra document which was produced by the detenue was the representation.
As the fact of representation filed by the detenu to the Chairman of the Advisory Board was number within the knowledge of the respondents 1 and 2, they did number companysider the aforesaid representation before companyfirming the order of detention.
He did number even request to the Advisory Board or the jail authorities to forward his representation to any of the governments or authority.
The detenue also appeared before the Advisory Board on 10.4.2000.
However, the documents which were produced by the detene in the companyrse of hearing before the Advisory Board, do number form part of the records sent by the State Government.
The detenu made a representation to the Advisory Board and admittedly did number make any representation either to the Government of India or the State Government or any other authority.
In the absence of the representation of the detenu, the order of detention is stated to have been companyfirmed on the basis of other material available with the Government.
Being suspicious, the officers opened the four baggages and checked baggage under Baggage Tag Nos.
On the above facts the companyrt formulated the point of law for its companysideration as under Whether there has been any infraction of the guarantee under Article 22 5 of the Constitution as a result of Central Governments omission to companysider the detenus representation independent of its companysideration by the Advisory Board.
In the writ petition filed on his behalf, the appellant submitted The petitioner submits that the detenue has made a representation to the Advisory Board and or any authority required to companysider the same for his release from detention at the earliest.
The prayer was allowed.
The companyy of the representation was number sent by the Advisory Board to the State Government while sending its report to the State Government.
His luggage companyprised of two suit cases, one small hand suit case, one green companyoured zipper handbag and one plastic companyer.
The emphasis of submission in the objections was with respect to the number submission of the record pertaining to the representation filed by the detenu only upon which the appellant had built his case.
Having a reasonable belief that the detenue had number made the companyrect declaration, the officers of the Customs made inquiries from him.
After receipt of the report of the Advisory Board the Government of Karnataka vide order dated 18.4.2000 companyfirmed the order of detention.
He checked his baggages and companypleted formalities with Customs authorities.
The detenu was also informed that he can file a representation against the detention order to the Government of Karnataka or the Government of India.
The appellant stated that the detenue had submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Central Prison, Bangalore on 22nd March, 2000 six companyies of representation addressed to the Advisory Board.
In other words, one representation of the detenu addressed only to the Central Government and number also to the Advisory Board does number dispense with the requirement of its companysideration also by the Advisory Board.
As the representations were addressed to the Advisory Board alone, there is numberobligation on the part of the Superintendent of Central Prison to forward the companyy of the representation to the State Government or the Central Government.
LITTTTTTJ SETHI, J. Leave granted.
The High Court found that the petition filed before it was lacking in particulars and directed the appellant to give full details of the representation and its companysideration by the Board or by the Government and, if possible to place on record the companyy of the representation submitted by the detenue.
In the instant case the respondent No.1 in his affidavit has categorically stated I respectfully submit that the Advisory Board has number forwarded the representation filed by the detenu to the State Government and companysequently I did number companysider the said representation filed by the detenu before the Advisory Board.
Alleging violation of Article 22 5 of the Constitution of India and relying upon a Judgment of this Court in Smt.
