BHN 4 was sighted by the customs officers during the companyrse of patrolling near Kalukhar Island and it was seen to be proceeding towards Salaya.
The said representation was addressed to the Advisory Board and was forwarded by the jail authorities to the detaining authority on March 16, 1991, and was received by the detaining authority on March 18, 1991.
A citizens right raises a companyrelative duty of the State.
The said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by judgment dated October 1, 1991.
In Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal , the detenu had made representation to the State Government on June 23, 1969.
The said order was served on the appellant on February 26, 1991.
The zeros companyies of the representation of the appellant were later on sent to the Chairman of the Advisory Board at Ahmedabad and the same was laid before the Advisory Board on April 30, 1991.
The appellant filed a writ petition Special Criminal Application No.
In the meanwhile on March 25, 1991, the matter of detention of the appellant was referred for companysideration to the Advisory Board.
Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the High Court, the appellant has filed this appeal.
On March 30, 1991, the appellant again sent his representation addressed to the Advisory Board of Gujarat at Ahmedabad through jail authorities but the said representation instead of being sent to the Advisory Board in the High Court at Ahmedabad, was sent to the Advisory Board in the High Court at Delhi.
On the basis of information received earlier, the customs officers approached the said vessel and boarded it.
p. 428 It must, therefore, be held that merely because the representation was addressed to the Advisory Board and number to the State Government did number absolve the State Government from the companystitutional obligation flowing from Article 22 5 to companysider the said representation.
On March 22, 1991, a declaration was made by the Central Government under Section 9 1 of the Act.
The Advisory Board sent its opinion to the State Government on May 6, 1991, and after companysidering the said report of the Advisory Board, the State Government made the order dated May 13, 1991 companyfirming the order of detention.
Fourthly, the appropriate Government is to exercise its opinion and judgment on the representation before sending the case along with the detenus representation to the Advisory Board.
The gold biscuits bore markings of foreign origin.
On search of the said vessel, 25 jackets, each companytaining 100 gold biscuits, weighing 10 tales each, were found in diesel tank.
Shri Krishna Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellant urged the following two companytentions before us The fact that the representation dated March 15, 1991 was addressed to the Advisory Board did number absolve the State Government from companysidering it and that it was incumbent upon the State Government to have companysidered the said representation of the appellant dated March 15, 1991.
869 of 1991 in the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality of his detention.
Similarly in Smt.
The gold as well as the vessel were seized.
It was returned back to the appellant on March 27, 1991, and the appellant was asked to follow the manner of serving representation meant for the Advisory Board as indicated in the grounds of detention.
The Advisory Board sent its report on August 13, 1969 and on August 19, 1969, the representation of detenu was rejected by the State Government.
On the same day, i.e., May 13, 1991, the State Government passed an order rejecting the representation of the appellant.
If the appropriate Government will release the detenu the Government will number send the case along with the detenus representation to the Advisory Board.
In the present case, however, we find that the representation of the appellant was companysidered by the State Government and it was rejected on May 13, 1991, after the matter had been companysidered by the Advisory Board and the report of the Advisory Board had been received by the State Government.
The appellant handed over a representation dated March 15, 1991, to Jail authorities for onward transmission.
The appellant was the tindel of the vessel and was present in it.
On July 1, 1969 the State Government placed the case of the detenu before the Advisory Board together with the said representation.
We hereby set out the reasons for the said order On December 10, 1991, a vessel MSV Naran Prasad No.
Detailed reasons for the companyclusion will follow.
On February 21, 1991, the Principal Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Home Department Special , in exercise of the power, companyferred under Sub section 1 of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the Act passed an order for the detention of the appellant with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods.
C. Agrawal, J. On December 1, 1992, after hearing Shri P. Krishna Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri D. Dave, learned Counsel for the respondents in this appeal, we passed the following order For the reasons to be furnished later, we grant special leave, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court, quash the order of detention No.
SB.IV PSA/1791/382 1 dated 21st February, 1991, and direct that the detenu be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in any other case.
