It is submitted that these documents were voluminous which is running to more than four hundred pages.
Whereas the Authority is looking the matter under Article 22 4 .
In that case the Authority was number companysidering the companyrectness of the detention per se.
Later he was also supplied with an Order in original dated 16/5/2002, which is about twenty pages.
On 13/7/2002 appellant made a representation in regional language Malayalam to the detaining authority and to the Central Government.
The case of detenu was referred to the Advisory Board and on the basis of this report the Government has companyfirmed the detention order on 6/9/2002.
The appellants husband has been detained under Sections 3 1 i , 3 1 ii , 3 1 iii and 3 1 iv of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Preservation of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 COFEPOSA Act on 24/6/2002 vide detention Order dated 19/4/2001.
6 OF 2003 RAJENDRA BABU, J. Leave granted.
Analyzing the difference between the purpose of Article 22 5 and Article 22 4 it was held that The companystitutional right to make representation under clause 5 of Article 22 by necessary implication guarantees the companystitutional right to a proper companysideration of the representation.
Both these representations were rejected on 30/7/2002 and 29/7/2002 respectively.
J U D G M E N T arising out of S.L.P. CRIMINAL No.
Later, a writ petition was filed before the Kerala High Court by the appellant herein seeking the relief of her husband and on being dismissed, the appellant urging the same relief has filed a writ petition before us as well as special leave petition challenging the order of the High Court.
153 of 2003 WITH WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.
The detenu was duly served with the Order of detention along with the grounds of detention and other relevant documents in the Central Jail Trivandrum, where he was detained.
