all of Udaipur.
On November 30, 1979, 23 slabs of silver weighing, in aggregate, 692.527 kgs.
It is stated herein that the detenu was previously detained by an order, dated September 1974 of the Government of India, under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act MISA .
The Advisory Board was scheduled to meet shortly thereafter on March 24, 1980.
On February 20, 1980, the State Government informed the Advocate that his request for interview with the detenu had been granted.
On February 25, 1980, the Collector wrote back to the State Government that it was number necessary to supply the companyies of the statements and documents asked for by the detenu, as the grounds of detention served on him were quite elaborate to enable the detenu to make effective representation.
6 and 30 and further companysidered it against public interest to disclose further facts companytained in various intelligence reports referred to in the aforesaid paragraphs 3, 4, 6 and 30.
449 of 1980.
In these circumstances, the detenu had numberfurther companystitutional right to be supplied with the details and sources of the information on which the order of detention was passed.
As a result, on March 5, 1980, the Collector sent a letter to the State Government, stating that he had numberobjection to furnish the detenu with relevant documents.
Thus, after excluding the time taken in transit, there was a delay of 17 days in furnishing companyies to the detenu.
As per letter, dated March 7, 1980, the Section Officer of the Home Department sent the relevant documents running into 461 pages, to the detenu through the Superintendent, District Prison, Rajkot, by registered acknowledgement due.
through the Superintendent Jail, requesting for the supply of companyies of statements and documents relied upon in the grounds of detention.
The State Government then on February 22, addressed a letter to the Sponsoring Authority Collector of Customs.
The statements of these persons recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and the other circumstantial evidence companylected, revealed that the detenu was engineering the whole process of attempting to smuggle the silver out of India in companyspiracy with Umar Bakshi and others.
On February 15, 1980, the detenu sent a letter.
This letter of the Advocate, according to the companynter affidavit filed by Shri Shah, was received by him on February 30, 1980 through the Chief Ministers Secretariat.
But numberapplication for obtaining companyies of the material documents had been made by the detenu till February 15118, 1980, when it was put in a companyrse of companymunication to the Government, while permission for interview with the lawyer was granted on the 20th February.
They also companytain the introductory background including the history of the detenu.
On February 12, 1980, the Secretary to Chief Minister wrote in reply to the Advocate, that his request for having an interview with the detenu was being looked into by Government with the Home Department.
Although the Government took more than two weeks to companysider the lawyers request to interview the detenu, the fact remains that this permission was granted only two days after the despatch of the detenus application for obtaining companyies of the additional documents or materials.
The detenu was also allowed by an order, dated February 20, 1980, to be interviewed by his lawyer.
valued at Rs.
On November 21, 1979, the detenu hatched a companyspiracy with one Umar Bakshi to smuggle wrist watches and silver out of the companyntry to Dubai In pursuance of that companyspiracy, on October 9, 1979, the detenu and the said Umar Bakshi smuggled about 45 slabs of silver in the vessel Saraswati Prasad registered in the name of Ravia Kalan of Daman.
Calls booked by the detenu to various telephone numbers of other suspected smugglers were, however, detected.
According to the petitioner his lawyer by a letter, dated February 1, 1980, sought an interview to enable him to draft his representation.
This companystitutional obligation was fully discharged when the elaborate grounds of detention companytaining the substance of all the material facts, were served on the detenu.
2 Mohmed Hussain Hanif Mohmed Pathan, the driver and 3 Babukhan Istiyarkhan Ahmed Pathan, the cleaner.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution Soli J. Sorabjee, M.G. Karmali, Vineet Kumar and Mukul Mudgal for the Petitioner.
The detenu was, however, released on March 21, 1977.
The said documents were received by the detenu on March 11, 1980 at Rajkot.
Earlier, on February 1, 1980, Shri P.K. Nair, Advocate had addressed a letter to the Chief Minister of Gujarat asking for permission for an interview with the detenu to seek instructions from him for drafting his representation.
The grounds of detention served on the detenu are very elaborate and detailed.
The Collector sent companyies of the required statements to the State Government and the latter received the same on February 29, 1980.
Ahmedabad, enquiring whether furnishing companyies of documents would number prejudice public interest.
The occupants of the motor truck disclosed their identities as 1 Kailashchandra Shantilal Jain.
On the repeal of MISA and the companymencement of COFEPOSA, a fresh order, dated December 19, 1974, under the COFEPOSA, was served on the detenu.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
As stated in the grounds, his activities were kept under surveillance by the Customs Department.
The detenus writ petition for a writ of habeas companypus was dismissed by the High Court of Gujarat on May 6, 1976 in view of the Presidential Order, dated June 27, 1975, made under Article 359 1 of the Constitution which had suspended the rights under Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
15,65,111, were seized by the officers of the Collectorate of Central Excise and Customs from a truck which was intercepted near village Pipodara.
the State Government companysidered it against the public interest to disclose the sources of the intelligence referred in paragraphs 3.
On March 4, 1980, the second respondent Deputy Secretary, Home Department arranged personal discussion with the Collector to solicit his companysidered view.
In or about July 1979, the detenu attempted to smuggle gold, but he was number successful.
The Order was expressed in the name of the Governor of Gujarat.
On January, 31, 1980, an order of detention, dated January 30, 1980 under Section 3 1 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 for short, called the COFEPOSA , issued by the second respondent, Shri P.M. Shah, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Home Department, was served on Lallu Jogi Patel hereinafter referred to as the detenu .
The Judgment of the Court Was delivered by, SARKARIA, J. This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for the issuance of a writ of habeas companypus.
L. Nain and M.N. Shroff for the Respondent.
According to the companynter filed by Shri Shah, Deputy Secretary to Government of Gujarat, this letter was received by the State Government on February 18, 1980.
The companyies were despatched to the detenu by registered post on March 7, 1980 and were received by him on March 11, 1980 at Rajkot.
On the same date January 31, 1980 , the grounds of detention were served on the detenu.
