URMIL SOOD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Suresh Kumar Sood has been detained by virtue of an order dated March 30, 1983 passed by the Government of Maharashtra under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 as the detaining authority was of the view that it was necessary to detain him for preventing him from smuggling goods. Grounds of detention also of the same date were duly served on Sood.

(2.) His wife is the petitioner before us. She challenges the detention and continued detention of her husband on diverse grounds. It is not necessary to notice all of them inasmuch as after some hearing learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily pressed only one point. The learned counsel has Urged that the continued detention of Sood is vitiated for violation of the provisions of Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution.

(3.) The relevant facts for consideration of this Submission are these. Sood made representations against his detention. These representations were separately dealt with by the detaining authority and rejected. However, as required by Section 8 of the aforesaid Act and the mandate of the Constitution, reference was made to an Advisory Board at Bombay. The Advisory Board gave an opinion that the detention was justified. The contention is with regard to what happened in the proceedings of the Advisory Board. The averments in this regard are found in para 3.10 of the petition. These read as under :-