(1.) These criminal writ petitions challenging the order of detention dated 17/5/2019 are admitted on 04/06/2019. At that time by a speaking order, this court directed respondent no. 3 Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) Government of India to consider the writ petition itself as representation of the detenue under article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and to produce before this court the file concerning such consideration along with the orders passed thereon. The rule was then made returnable on 12/06/2019. We need not go to the circumstances in which thereafter the matters came to be placed before us as alternate Bench. However, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. l 1 to 3 in these matters at the outset urged that the meeting of the Advisory Board is scheduled on 11/7/2019 and therefore, consideration of the present matters should be postponed. It is not in dispute that as per directions contained in the order dated 4/6/2019, respondent no. 3 has already considered and rejected the representation and communicated it to the petitioners. It is in this backdrop that we have heard Mr. Chaudhary learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Yadnik, learned APP for respondent State and Smt. Pai for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
(2.) Opposing the preliminary objection raised by respondent no.1 to 3 and pressing for hearing, learned senior advocate relied upon the judgments of the Honourable Apex Court in Piyush Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City and another, 1989 Supp1 SCC 322 particularly paragraph 6, to submit that the jurisdiction to be exercised by this Court and by the Advisory Board is distinct and this Court can and in present matters must proceed further with consideration of the controversy on merits.
(3.) He points out that the respondent no.1 arrested the petitioners under section 135 of the Customs Act on 29/3/2019. The Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected their bail application on 30/4/2019.