SALIYAL BEEVI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ibrahim, Murugan, Abu Gani and Kareem Sadhik Basha detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, for short, "COFEPOSA Act" are the beneficiaries of these writ petitions filed seeking issuance of writs, directions or orders in the nature of habeas corpus on the ground that

(2.) Advocates S. Palanikumar appearing on behalf of the petitioners in these cases. Advocate Govindu P. Renuka. the Central Government Counsel appearing for Union of India which is the second respondent and Advocate P. K. Babu, the Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala and the Superintendent of the Central Prison.-Thiruvananthapuram. who are respondents 1 and 3 in these writ petitions, submitted that these matters could be heard together in view of the fact that the contentions on facts and in law are fundamentally similar in these cases and because the grounds of detention are based on the same sequence of alleged transactions, treated as the foundation for the detention orders. Hence, we proceed accordingly.

(3.) In support of the writ petitions, the arguments were as to non-application of mind while passing the detention order and while considering the representation, delay in passing the detention and also in considering the representation; documents relied on and asked for were not furnished and that the show cause notice and reply were neither placed before the Advisory Board nor considered. Reference was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the different decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik v. Union of India, 1989 AIR(SC) 1403, Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1999 AIR(SCW) 139, Yumnam Mangibabu Singh v. State of Manipur, 1983 AIR(SC) 300 and Adishwar Jain v. Union of India, 2007 1 SCC(Cri) 464, the decision of the Madras High Court in Mohiadeen Sahib, P. M. S. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2006 1 MadLJ(Cri) 131 and the decision of this Court in WP (Cri) No. 230 of 2008 and Lekha Nandakumar v. Government of India, 2004 CrLJ 3797.