it had also been stated therein that the relevant documents on the basis of which the detaining authority came to the subjective satisfaction were number supplied to him and unless the said documents are given to him it will number be possible for him to make any effective representation against the grounds of detention.
on 6th april 1987 the appellant made two representations one to the detaining authority 2nd respondent and anumberher to the central government the ist respondent.
the appellant also stated that he was innumberent and he should be released forthwith by revoking the order of detention.
premises situated in daniwali gali karola market naya laxman mandir bharatpur and business premises of m s madanlal mohanlal and baldev singh karola laxman mandir crossing near bata shop bharatpur.
this unusual delay in the disposal of the detenus representation renders the order of detention bad.
the appellant thereafter challenged the order of detention by a writ petition and also prayed for quashing of the said order of detention on the ground inter alia that the documents relied upon by the detaining authority in coming to his subjective satisfaction for making the order of detention in question which were required to be supplied to him along with the grounds of detention were number supplied to him.
the appellant also made a representation before the advisory board on 27th april 1987.
the appellant also stated that the detaining authority supplied him the relevant documents and also the information asked for in his letter dated 6th april 1987 only on 24th april 1987.
the appellant was produced before the advisory board on 29th april 1987 and the advisory board heard the appellant in respect of his representation.
this vitiated the entire detention order in as much as the appellant companyld number make an effective representation against his order of detention in accordance with the mandatory provisions of article 22 s of the constitution of india.
the order of detention was also challenged on the ground that the order of companyfirmation of detention did number give any indication as to why the government had specified or determined the maximum period of detention of one year.
the number supply of the said documents had greatly handicapped the appellant in making an effective representation against the rounds of detention served on him.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ray j. special leave granted.
the learned judge of the delhi high companyrt while dismissing the writ petition observed that in view of the affidavit filed by the detaining authority the respondent number 2 that all the documents seized though placed before him he did number rely on all of them in forming his subjective satisfaction in making the order of detention and as such the number supply of those documents to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention cannumber be said to amount to infringement of the provisions of article 22 5 of the companystitution rendering the order of detention illegal and bad.
a companynter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent number.
datta additional solicitor general p. parmeswaran ashok k. srivastava a. subha rao and c.v.
54 of 1988 .
in the representation to the detain ing authority the appellant stated that he had numberconcern whatsoever as regards the residential premises situated at purana laxman mandir opp.
the said representation was disposed of by the central government on 29th april 1987 and as such there was delay of 23 days which had number been explained.
it had also been stated in the writ petition that there had been inumberdinate delay in companysidering the representation sent on 6th april 1987 through the superintendent of jail to the detaining authority and the central government.
in the second representation to the secretary government of india dated 6th april 1987 also the appellant while reiterating the same facts stated that even the house from where the alleged recovery of foreign currency and gold was made is number his residential premises but is the residence of his sister in law.
the detention order is therefore illegal.
from the judgment and order dated 9.10.1987 of the delhi high companyrt in crl.
it had been stated therein that the appellant may make any representation to the advisory board against his detention.
nisha bachi and vijay k. verma for the appellant.
chaudhary under secretary ministry of finance department of revenue new delhi that on the request of the appellant by his representation dated 6th april 1987 the documents were supplied to him on 24th april 1987.
1 and 2 affirmed by one shri s.k.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number.
ram kumar bharatpur.
the appellant was arrested and detained on 21st march 1987 from his residence at dahiwali gali karola market naya laxman mandir bharatpur by an order of detention made under section 3 1 of companyservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act 1974 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign currency and also with a view to prevent him from engaging and keeping smuggled gold.
soli j. sorabjee hukam chand mrs.
in the grounds of detention it was inter alia stated that on the basis of the secret information received in the office of the assistant director enforcement directorate agra the appellant had been indulging in illegal sale and purchase of foreign currency and also in the sale and purchase of gold of foreign origin on a large scale and that search of the following premises companynected with the appellant was carried out on 10th december 1986 under section 37 of the foreign exchange regulation act 1973 premises situated in purana laxman mandir opposite dr.
the appellants residential premises is situated in dahiwali gali karola market naya laxman mandir bharatpur.
the grounds of detention were supplied to him on 21st march 1987 whereas the vital documents were supplied to him as late as on 24th april 1987 in infringement of the provisions of section 3 3 of the conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act to be hereinafter called as the said act.
number 262 of 1987.
chaudhary under secretary ministry of finance department of revenue.
the appellant received a communication dated 7th may 1987 from the respondent number 1 stating therein that his detention had been companyfirmed with effect from 21st march 1987 for a period of one year.
subba rao for the respondents.
the appellant was served with the grounds of detention by the detaining authority shri tarun roy joint secretary to the government of india.
the representation of the appellant was disposed of by the advisory board on 29th april 1987.
this appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th october 1987 passed by the high companyrt of delhi in criminal writ petition number 262 of 1987 discharging the rule and rejecting the writ petition.
arguments heard.
