3 1 of the COFEPOSA, directed the detention of Sunder Shankardas Devidasani by an order dated March 9, 1981, with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods and abetting the smuggling of goods.
8 b required the Government to make a reference to the Advisory Board within five weeks from the date of detention and this meant that the Government had first to decide that it was necessary to detain the person for more than five weeks and then to forward the reference to the Advisory Board.
There was thus, according to Shri Jethmalani, a departure from the prescribed procedural requirement and for that reason the companytinued detention of the detenu for any period longer than five weeks mentioned in Sec 8 b was illegal.
In order to enable the Advisory Board to discharge its companystitutional obligation, the Government is required to make a reference to the Advisory Board within five weeks from the date of detention Sec.
8 b of the COFEPOSA to make the reference to the Advisory Board, in the instant case, it was number the Government but one of its subordinate officers that had made the reference.
The Advisory Board in its turn is charged with the task of submitting a report within eleven weeks from the date of detention, specifying its opinion as to whether or number there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person companycerned Sec.
By a letter dated May 6, 1981 the detenu was informed by the Advisory Board that the Board had reported to the Government of Maharashtra advising them that there was sufficient material to justify his detention.
On receipt of the report the Government has to revoke the detention, if the Board has reported that there is numbersufficient cause for the detention or, to companyfirm the order of detention and specify the period of detention if the Board has reported that there is sufficient cause for the detention Sec.
The detenu made a representation on April 14, 1981 and this was rejected by the Government on April 25, 1981.
A further representation made by the detenu on April 25, 1981 was also rejected on May 2, 1981.
Quite obviously the period of eleven weeks from the date of detention prescribed for the submission of the report of the Advisory Board is to enable companypliance with the Constitutional time limit of three months.
The standing order is made by Shri A.R. Antulay, Chief Minister of Maharashtra and Minister for Home and it directs allotment of the business appertaining to All cases of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 and the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities.
Maharashtra Detention Order, 1974 and all other matters arising under the provisions of the said Act and the said order and any other orders issued under this Act, except.
The initial companypulsion on the detaining authority before making an order of detention is to arrive at the satisfaction that it is necessary to detain the person companycerned with a view to preventing him from acting in a certain manner or with a view to preventing him from companymitting certain acts.
In the mean time the Advisory Board met on April 29, 1981 and companysidered the case of the detenu.
The grounds of detention, also of the same date, were duly served on the detenu.
The obligation to specify the period of detention is upon the appropriate Government and that has to be done at the final stage, after companysideration of the report of the Advisory Board.
The Government of Maharashtra, in exercise of the powers under Sec.
Shri Jethmalanis companytention was that Sec.
In this application for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the first submission of Shri Jethmalani, learned companynsel for the detenu, was that although it was the Government that was required by Sec.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Criminal No.
8 c , COFEPOSA .
8 f COFEPOSA .
8 b of COFEPOSA .
2690 of 1981.
2690 of 1981.
