The order, and the grounds of detention served on him, did number inform him that he had a light to make a representation against his detention.
The detention order and the grounds of detention were served on the detenu in jail on January 23, 1980.
Thereafter, on July 25, 1980, the Central Government rejected his representation.
From a perusal of these documents, it appears that the representation was submitted by the detenu through the Superintendent of Jail on February 20, 1980.
On July 11, 1980, the detenu again made a representation under Section 11 of the COFEPOSA, addressed to the Central Government as well as to the State Government for revocation of his detention.
Thereafter on March 10, 1980 his detention was companyfirmed by the State Government.
On February 20, 1980 the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority through the Superintendent of Jail.
The companyies were supplied to him on June 9, 1980.
The Superintendent of Jail sent it to the Inspector General of Prisons, in whose office it remained unattended till March 13, 1980, on which date it was for warded to the State Government.
Replying to the allegations in the writ petition regarding the first, companytention, Shri V.D. Sharma has in his affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, stated that the representation of the detenu, made on February 20, 1980, was received in the Home Department of the State Government on March 14, 1980.
On March 26, 1980, his representation was rejected by the State Government.
The detenus right to have his representation companysidered by the detaining authority, independently of the recommendation of the Advisory Board, has been violated.
On January 18, 1980, an order of his detention under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 herein after called the COFEPOSA was passed by the Government of Rajasthan under the signature of the Home Secretary to the Government.
Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents State has placed for our perusal the relevant documents from the official record.
The detenu was an illiterate rustic.
On February 25, 1980, he was produced before the Advisory Board.
It may be numbered that the jail wherein the detenu was detained, the Office of the Inspector General of Prisons and the Office of the Home Secretary to the State Government, were all located in Jaipur City.
On July 16, 1980, the detenu filed this writ petition.
On May, 19, 1980, the detenu sent a written request for the supply of documents and material relied upon in the grounds of detention.
This infer ence is available from the facts that the detaining authority companysidered and rejected his representation well after the receipt of the report of the Advisory Board the representatives of the detaining authority were present at the hearing before the Advisory Board and had thus companye to know the views of the Advisory Board which must have influenced the decision of the detaining authority in rejecting the detenus representation on March 26, 1980.
This omission vitiates the detention.
In pursuance of that order, the detenu was arrested on January 21, 1980.
Thereafter, the said representation was companysidered and rejected by the then Advisor to the Governor of Rajasthan, Shri S.L. Khurana on March 26, 1980.
In the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, also, numberexplanation of this delay has been given.
Saleh Mohammad, petitioner is an Indian citizen.
S. Sarkaria, J. This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of habeas companypus.
