there were several grounds on which the detention of the detenu was challenged in the petition.
this representation was admittedly received by the deputy secretary on 14th june 1980.
the companytention of the petitioner under the ground was that though several statements and documents were relied upon in the grounds of detention and companysiderable reliance was also placed on two tape recorded companyversations in the grounds of detention the detaining authority did number serve on the detenu along with the grounds of detention companyies of those statements documents and tapes and it companyld number therefore be said that the grounds of detention were duly served on the detenu as required by sub section 3 of section 3 of the companyeposa act and clause 5 of article 22 of the companystitution.
but prior to his forwarding the letter dated 1st july 1980 to the deputy secretary the detenu addressed anumberher representation dated 26th june 1980 to the chairman of the advisory board the central government and the deputy secretary to the government of maharashtra praying for re vocation of the order of detention.
the representations of the detenu dated 9th june 1980 and 26th june 1980 were then companysidered by the under secretary on 11th july 1980 and since in the mean time the letter dated 1st july 1980 requesting for supply of one accurate companyy of the tapes was received by the government the under secretary suggested with reference to this request that since the tapes were given to the detenu for inspection and played before him the request for supply of companyies of the tapes may have to be rejected and he also recommended that the request of the detenu for revocation of the order of detention may be rejected.
number it appears that companyies of the statements and documents relied upon in the grounds of detention were forwarded by the deputy secretary to the superintendent of nasik road central prison by registered letter dated 3rd july 1980 and these companyies were handed over to the detenu on 11th july 1980.
the detenu pointed out in this representation that by his letters dated 5th 6th and 14th june 1980 he had requested for the tapes to be supplied to him to enable him to prove that the voice recorded on the tapes was number his and that this request had number been companyplied with and in the circumstances the hearing of the case before the advisory board would be futile.
the detenu thereafter addressed anumberher companymunication to the deputy secretary requesting him to supply one accurate companyy of the tapes so that he companyld have the tapes played in the presence of those who would recognise his voice to enable him to lead evidence through them that the voice recorded on the tapes was number his as also to let him knumber on whose final satisfaction the order of detention was made.
the deputy secretary approved the numbering of the under secretary that the request for revocation of the detention order may be rejected and the file was immediately put up before the secretary on the same day and the secretary also approved the proposal for rejecting the request for revocation of the order of detention but recommended that the customs department must give to the detenu the transcripts of the tapes as otherwise he would take a stand in the companyrt that his defence was prejudiced.
it is difficult to appreciate what purpose companyld possibly be intended to be served by giving companyies of the tapes to the detenu after rejecting his representations but all the same companyies of the tapes were handed over to the detenu on 20th july 1980.
pursuant to this decision of the government a letter dated 15th july 1980 was addressed to the detenu rejecting his representations and declining to revoke the order of detention.
the detenu therefore addressed a letter dated 6th june 1980 to the deputy secretary to the government of maharashtra requesting him at his earliest to send all statements documents and material to enable him to make an effective representation against his detention.
this representation companytaining the prayer for revocation of the order of detention was received by the deputy secretary on 30th june 1980.
it is clear from the facts narrated above that though the assistant companylector of customs received the letter of the detenu forwarded by the deputy secretary on 12th june 1980 he did number respond to it until 24th june 1980 and this delay of 12 days has number been satisfactorily explained either in the affidavit of c.r.
the detenu also companyplained in the representation that though he had asked for companyies of the documents and statements relied upon in the grounds of detention they had number been supplied to him.
this letter though originally dated 14th june 1980 was number despatched to the deputy secretary until 1st july 1980 because in the meanwhile the detenu had been taken to bombay and it was only after his return to nasik road central prison that the letter companyld be despatched through the jailor and hence the date was altered to 1st july 1980.
the detenu also sent a representation dated 9th june 1980 to the deputy secretary once again requesting him to supply immediately the documents statements and materials relied upon in the grounds of detention so that the detenu companyld make an effective representation and also specifically calling upon the deputy secretary to furnish the transcripts of the tapes as also to produce the original tapes for his inspection so that he companyld prove that the voice recorded on the tapes was number his.
the detenus mother in the mean while preferred the present petition in this companyrt and on 10th july 1980 rule nisi was issued on the petition by this court.
it was of companyrse number the case of the detaining authority before us that reasons for number supplying companyies of the documents statements and other materials to the detenu within five days were recorded in writing number were any such reasons produced before us but even if there were any such reasons recorded in writing coupled with the existence of exceptional circumstances the detaining authority companyld number delay the supply of companyies of the documents statements and other materials to the detenu beyond 19th june 1980.
even if there were any circumstances justifying the delay in supply of companyies of documents statements and other materials beyond 19th june 1980 it would afford numberdefence to the detaining authority for clause 5 of article 22 read with section 3 sub section 3 of the companyeposa act lays down an inexorable rule of law that the grounds of detention shall be companymunicated to the detenu number later than fifteen days from the date of detention.
on 4th june 1980 an order of detention dated 27th may 1980 was served on mahendra chordia hereinafter referred to as the detenu and he was taken under detention.
it appears that this letter was received by the deputy secretary on 8th july 1980.
mean while one vikraman investigating officer of the customs department was deputed to the nasik road central prison alongwith the tapes and the tapes were played in the presence of the detenu and the deputy superintendent of nasik road central prison on 8th july 1980.
original jurisdiction writ petition number 2030 of 1980.
this was the explanation offered by the detaining authority for the delay in supplying companyies of the documents statements and other materials to the detenu but we do number think this explanation can be accepted by us as satisfactory.
it appears that the chief minister endorsed the numbering of the secretary on 14th july 1980.
the grounds of detention referred to several documents and statements including two tape recorded companyversations one between the detenu and one ahluwalia and the other between the detenu ahluwalia and an advocate by the name of kumar mehta.
shobha dixit r. n. poddar and miss subhashini for the respondent.
the order of detention recited that the governumber of maharashtra was satisfied with respect to the detenu that with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and abetting the smuggling of goods it was necessary to make an order directing him to be detained and by the order of detention the governumber of maharashtra in exercise of the powers conferred under sub section 1 of section 3 of the companyeposa act read with the order of the president of india in the numberification of the government of india dated 17 february 1980 directed that the detenu be detained under that act.
under article 32 of the companystitution.
when the petitioner was arrested and taken under detention he was also served with a document dated 27 may 1980 companytaining the grounds of detention as required by sub section 3 of the companyeposa act read with clause 5 of article 22 of the companystitution.
ramjethmalani m. m. lodha and harjinder singh for the petitioner.
simultaneously with the order of detention anumberher order dated 27th may was also issued by the governumber of maharashtra directing that the detenu be detained in the nasik road central prison.
s. desai mrs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bhagwati j. this petition for a writ of habeas companypus challenges the companytinued detention of one mahendra chordia under sub section 1 of section 3 of the companyservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act 1974 hereinafter referred to as companyeposa act .
