RAMESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order of detention dated 3rd October, 2003 issued under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, hereinafter referred to as "cofeposa".

(2.) The order of detention was issued on 3rd October, 2003 and was served on 8th May, 2004. The Advisory Board's meeting was held on 11th June, 2004. The present petition was filed on 28th June, 2004. Meanwhile, the detention order of the same date issued against the co-detenu by name rajendra Tripathi was revoked on 4th december, 2003 pursuant to the representation made by the said co-detenu through his lawyer on 27th November, 2003.

(3.) The petitioner challenges the detention order on four grounds. Firstly, consequent to the revocation of the detention order against the co-detenu whose role, as revealed from the grounds in support of the order, being disclosed as constituting the activities of abating the smuggling of the goods, which is not different from the one disclosed in relation to the detenu is this case, the detention order against the detenu therefore stands vitiated. Secondly, the State government was under the obligation to forward the order of revocation of the co- detenu along with the representation made by him to the Advisory Board before consideration of the case of the detenu by the advisory Board, as having failed to do so, the continued detention of the detenu is bad in law. Thirdly, in spite of the repeated requests for copies of the representation by the co-detenu Rajendra Tripathi and order of revocation of his detention, the same have not been supplied to the detenu and thereby the detenu has been denied of fair opportunity to make effective repiesentation in exercise of his right assuied under Article 22 (5) of the constitution of India. Fourthly that the decision on the consideiation of the representation by the petitioner to the State government has not been communicated to the detenu. Though the challenge to the impugned order is on the four grounds, it is not necessary to deal with all the four grounds and suffice to refer to only one ground which relates to the failure on the part of the respondents to place before the Advisoiy board, the copy of the representation by the co-detenu and that of the order of revocation of his detention before consideration of the case of the detenu by the Advisory Board.