The Petitioner detenu in the first instance filed a petition for habeas companypus in the High Court of Gujarat which was dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 25 11 1980.
by the Secretary thus, the representation has been rejected by an authority which had numberjurisdiction at all to companysider or pass any orders on the representation of the detenu.
Hence the petition in this Court for grant of special leave against the order of the High Court.
The detenu thereafter filed a petition for special leave against the order of the High Court and also a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in this Court.
Both the petition for special leave and the writ petition have been heard together.
The High Court while examining the companytention of the detenu sent for the entire file from the Government and after examining the documents itself found that as the documents companycerned were number relevant and companysisted of statements of some other persons, the failure to supply the documents to the detenu did number vitiate the order of detention.
The representation made by the detenu on 3 10 1980 has been rejected on 14 10 1980 number by the Home Minister but.
It was also pleaded by the detenu before the High Court that two of the documents which were referred to in the order of detention were number supplied to him because the Secretary thought that they were number relevant.
The writ petition and the criminal special leave arise out of the same subject matter, namely, that the petitioner Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya was detained by an order passed by the Home Minister of the State of Gujarat on 9 9 1980 under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act.
We number proceed to set out the reasons for the order which we passed on 21 1 1981.
Before the High Court, the detenu assailed the order of detention mainly on the ground that certain materials relied upon or referred to in the order of detention were number supplied to the detenu and hence he was number in a position to make an effective representation to the Government.
A separate writ petition has also been filed by the detenu in this Court in which apart from the point canvassed before the High Court certain additional grounds have been taken.
Murtaza Fazal Ali, J. By our Order dated 21 1 1981, we had already allowed the petition and directed the detenu to be released forthwith.
