Pursuant to his request, on February 1, 1980, companyies of all the statements of those persons, referred to in the show cause numberice, were furnished to the writ petitioner by the Customs Authorities.
By his reply, dated February 1, 1980, addressed to the detenus Advocate, Shri S.M. Sule, the Under Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department Special , stated that since the grounds of detention served on the detenu were clear, elaborate and precise, the request of the detenu for supply of companyies of all statements, panchanamas and other documents relied upon in the grounds of detention, it was regretted, companyld number be granted.
On the same date, the grounds of detention were served on the detenu.
A similar numberice was served on the writ petitioner, Suryakant who is the son of the detenu.
The son of the detenu, thereupon, approached the Customs Authorities and asked for the companyies of the statements of the persons and the other documents referred to in the numberice.
This refusal was companyveyed to the detenu about 23 days after he had made, through his companynsel, a request for the Supply of the basic documents.
On December 24, 1979, an order, dated December 18, 1979, issued under Section 3 1 of the COFEPOSA, by Shri S.D. Deshpande, the Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department Special , expressed in the name of the Governor, was served on the detenu.
The writ petitioner made these companyies available to the detenu, who thereafter, on February 5, 1980, submitted a representation addressed to the detaining authority and to the Chairman of the Advisory Board.
By a letter, dated March 13, 1980, the detenu was informed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra that his representation, dated February 5, 1980, had been declined by the Government.
On January 25, 1980, the detenu was served in the prison with a numberice, dated January 23, 1980, issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs, calling upon the detenu to show cause why the seized goods, referred to in the grounds of detention, be number companyfiscated and why penal action should number be taken against him and the others.
behalf of the detenu his Advocate addressed a letter to the Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department Special , companyies of which for immediate action were endorsed to 1 the Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay 2 the Collector of Customs and 3 the Assistant Collector of Customs R and I , COFEPOSA Cell, Bombay.
In this letter, the Advocate requested the addressees to be furnished with companyies of all the material documents and statements referred to and relied upon in the grounds of detention, to enable the detenu to make an effective representation against the impugned order of detention.
On January 9, 1980, on.
Vasantlal D. Minawala hereinafter referred to as the detenu resides in Bombay, and carries on business as a gold dealer in partnership in the name and style of Jewellers Danabhai Minawala at 212/58, Naveri Bazar, Bombay 2.
