DHARMISTA BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted. Arguments heard.

(2.) This appeal on special leave is against the judgment and order passed by the High court of Karnataka on 5/10/1988 dismissing the Writ Petition No. 93 of 1988 filed by Smt. Dharmista Bhagat, sister of the detenu, Balakrishna S. Mehta against the order of detention made under S. 3 (1 (iii) of COFEPOSA Act. The order of detention was made on 30/04/1988 and the detenu was arrested and detained on 11/05/1988. He was served with the order of detention made by respondent 1 along with the grounds of detention. The detenu was also served with the relevant documents mentioned in the grounds of detention. On 21/05/1988, the detenu made a representation to respondent 1 stating that some of the documents supplied with the grounds of detention are not at ail legible and as such requested for supplying him typed copies of those documents in order to enable him to make an effective representation. On 27/05/1988 a reply was sent to the said letter under the signatures of Mr. K. N. N. Karaniha, Under secretary to the Government, Home Department (COFEPOSA Cell) wherein it has been stated that those documents are legible and as such the request for furnishingtyped copies of the said documents cannot be conceded. On 6/06/1988 the detenu made a representation to respondent 1 against the said order of detention which was rejected by respondent 1. Thereafter a writ petition was filed assailing the order of detention as illegal and bad. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties the High court dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the order of detention holding that:

(3.) Against this impugned order rendered by the High court the instant appeal has been filed before this court. The sole contention advanced before this court on behalf of the appellant is that the non-supply of legible copies of the vital documents referred to in the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu in spite of the representation to that effect made by the detenu renders the impugned order of detention illegal and bad inasmuch as the detenu was prevented from exercising his right to make an effective representation against the purported" order of detention issued against him, under Article 22 (5 of the Constitution of India. It has been urged in this connection that the document, panchnama (mahajar) dated 12/02/1988 which has been specifically referred to in the list of documents supplied pari passu with the grounds of detention was not legible. The detenu immediately after receipt of the grounds made a request to the detaining authority on 21/05/1988 for giving him typed copy of the said document. This request was turned down by the detaining authority and no legible or typed copy of the said document was supplied to the detenu to enable him to make his effective representation against the impugned order of detention made under S. 3 (1 (iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.