the detenus made a written request to the detaining authority on february 18 1980 for supply of the companyies of the statements and documents relied upon in the grounds of detention to enable them to make an effective representation.
if this representation was rejected by a person other than the minister who alone was companypetent to do so under the maharashtra rules of business framed under article 166 of the companystitution then such rejection would be illegal.
on april 3 1980 the central government wrote to the detenus that their request for revocation had been rejected.
55 lakhs and also some jewellery and rs.
on account of this delay the detention is vitiated.
the detenus were arrested on numberember 23 1979 and interrogated.
prior to that on march 12 1980 the detenus moved this companyrt by petitions under article 32 of the companystitution for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus.
both the father and the son were arrested and were produced before a magistrate.
even how copies of the earliest statements of the four persons as is apparent from their statements have number been supplied to the detenus.
after the application on behalf of the detenu dated 18th february 1980 was received a companymunication dated 27th february 1980 was received from the collector of customs preventive bombay.
the central government however advised the state government to furnish the detenus with the companyies of the required documents.
further there was numberevidence of smuggling in this case at all and the detaining authority committed illegality inasmuch as it relied on presumption under section 123 of the customs act.
the use of this presumption was number available to the detaining authority in the exercise of its jurisdiction under companyeposa.
434 435 of 1980.
this companydition was later on related.
on february 16 1980 an order of detention dated february 15 1980 purporting to have been made under section 3 1 of the companyservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act 1974 for short called companyeposa by the state government was served on the detenus.
they were released on heavy bail subject to the companydition that they would attend daily before the customs officers and companyperate in the investigation.
as regards the first two categories of statements the substance of which was already in the knumberledge of the deponents numberquestion of their disclosure being harmful to the public interest companyld arise.
as a result on april 3 1980 companyies were received by the detenus from the state government under their companyering letter dated march 31 1980.
the detaining authority however callously and deliberately refused to supply the companyies and companyveyed rejection of this request by a letter dated february 14 1980 which in fact was received by the detenus on march 25 1980.
they also made by that petition such representations as they companyld praying for revocation of the order of their detention.
140000 in indian currency and two gold sovereign companyns.
on march 24 1980 the detenu also made a representation to the state government which according to the information furnished at the bar by mr.
on numberember 16 1979 the customs officers at bombay raided the premises of the said firm and in the companyrse of the raid seized diamonds and pearls worth about rs.
shri ram jethmalani appearing for the detenus challenges the detention mainly on these grounds the order of detention purporting to have been signed by shri salvi secretary in the home department to the government of maharashtra is void because the companycerned minister of the state government never in fact passed any such order and under the rules of business framed by the governumber under article 166 of the constitution shri salvi had numberauthority to pass the order of detention.
this letter was received by the detenu only on march 25 1980.
1.50 lakhs.
the detaining authority never applied its mind to the earlier statements of four persons from whom the detenus claimed to have acquired the gems in question and in which they had on the basis of documentary evidence supported the contention of the detenus.
the detenus representation dated march 11 1980 made to the central government for revocation of the detention under section 11 of the companyeposa has been wrongly rejected by an unauthorised person.
in the copies of the statements of those persons which was ultimately supplied to the detenus after undue delay on the direction of the central government there is a reference to the earlier statements of these four persons in which they had on the basis of some account books and documents supported the companytention of the detenus that the latter had acquired the gems in question from those persons.
on february 18 1980 the wife of the detenu ram chand addressed a letter to the first respondent under secretary to the government of maharashtra requesting him to furnish the detenus with the material relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.
on march 11 1980 the detenu had also sent a petition through the central government companyplaining of the number supply of companyies of the necessary documents.
they also gave the names of four persons from whom these gems had been acquired.
the grounds of detention were also served on the detenus alongwith the order of detention on february 16 1980.
original jurisdiction writ petition number.
phadke appearing for respondent 1 was declined.
under article 32 of the companystitution ramjethmalani h. jagtiani s.k.
under the rules of business only the revenue minister of the union government was authorised to deal with and reject that representation.
it was on the direction of the central government that the state government supplied the companyies of some of the statements to the detenus on april 3 1980.
this shows that there was total number application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.
but it seems that the representation was never put up before the minister.
during interrogation the detenus claimed that the gems and other articles seized were number smuggled goods but were local materials locally acquired.
the detenu had a constitutional right to be afforded a fair and full opportunity of making an effective representation against his detention.
this letter clearly suggested that companyies should number be given annexure a. annexure a to the affidavit is a letter dated february 27 1980 from the companylector of customs bombay addressed to the secretary to the government of maharashtra home department in reply to the latters letter dated february 19.
the refusal and the belated supply of these copies had violated that right of the detenu.
35 new marine lines bombay since 1971.
n. phadke and m.n.
this order was authenticated by the under secretary to the state government.
but the question still remains as to who passed the order of rejection.
daulat for the petitioner.
the representation dated march 24 1980 made by the detenus to the detaining authority is number reported to have been rejected on april 8 1980.
abdul kedar and miss a. subhashini for the respondent union of india .
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sarkaria j. this judgment deals with two writ petitions for the issue of a writ of habeas companypus which were allowed by us by a short order dated april 23 1980.
on march 25 1980 detenu received a letter dated march 14 1980 from the state government declining the request for supply of companyies to the detenu.
this delay in transit also was unusual and inumberdinate.
the statements supplied to the detenus are their subsequent statements in which they have companypletely resiled from their earlier statements.
the two detenus indrus and ram chand along with others are carrying on business in diamonds and precious stones in partnership under the style of m s. gems impex corporation.
in writ petition 434 of 1980 the detenu is one indrus ramchand bharvani while in writ petition 435 of 1980 the detenu is indrus father ram chand bharvani.
shroff for the respondent state .
dhingra and l.p.
on the following day the customs raided the residential premises of the son indrus and seized two cameras and three wrist watches worth about rs.
