Holding

The order of detention is invalid because the detaining authority failed to furnish the requisite documents within a reasonable time, violating Article 22(5) and Section 3(3) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

Summary

The petitioners, Mangalbhai Motiram Patel, were detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 on the ground of alleged involvement in smuggling. The petitioner applied for copies of all documents, statements and writings relied upon in the detention order so that he could make an effective representation, but the State Government delayed furnishing these documents for nine days and failed to explain the delay. The Supreme Court examined the constitutional requirement under Article 22(5) that a detaining authority must promptly communicate the grounds of detention and provide the material on which those grounds are based, interpreting this as a mandatory duty to supply the documents within a reasonable time (generally within five days, or fifteen in exceptional cases). Relying on earlier decisions (Kamat, Mullin, Choraria, Hoon) the Court held that the unexplained delay denied the petitioner the right to make an effective representation, rendering the continued detention illegal. Consequently, the order of detention dated 12 February 1980 was set aside and the petition was allowed. The Court emphasized that procedural safeguards under the Act and the Constitution must be scrupulously observed in preventive detention cases.

Issues considered

Whether the State's delay in furnishing the documents relied upon in the grounds of detention violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA Act, thereby invalidating the continued detention.
Whether the failure to consider the petitioner's application for revocation under Section 11(1) of the Act within a reasonable time rendered the detention unlawful.

Legislation cited

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974s. 11(1), s. 3(1), s. 3(3)

Subjects

preventive detentionArticle 22(5)right to representationdelay in furnishing documentsCOFEPOSAhabeas corpusprocedural safeguardsforeign exchange smuggling

Judgment

852

A

MANGALBHAI MOTIRAM PATEL

v.
B
STArE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

J
September 26, 1980

[P. N. BHAGWATI, A. P. SEN AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.]
/

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities
Act 1974-Section 3--Constitutional imperatives in cases of detention-Delay in
supplying copies of docummts, if vitiates the order of de!tention.
!. The constitutional imperatives indicated in Art. 22(5) are: firstly, the
detaining authority must, as soon as practicable, after the detention, commu-
nicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order of detention has been
made and secondly, the detaining authority must afford the detenu the earliest
D opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention. [855D]

2. The right to make a representation implies what it means 'the right
of making an effective representation'. Where certain documents are relied
upon in the grounds of d1~tention the grounds would be incomplete without
such documents. The detenu has the right to, be furnished with the grounds
of detention alongwith the documents relied upon. [855EJ

3. By a long line of decisions, this Court has on a construction of Art.
22(5) of the Constitution read with section 3(3) of the Conservation of Foreign
Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, I 974 held that the right

F
of making an effective representation carries with it the right to have the docu-
ments relied upon in the grounds of detention furnished without unreasonable
delay. Failure to supply the documents within ,a reasonable time is tantamount
to denial of the right of making representation and renders the continued
_J
detention invalid. [855H]

Ramchandra A. Kamat v. Union of India [1980] 2 SCR 1072, Frances Co-
ralie Mullin v. W. C. Khambra [1980] 2 SCR 1095, Smt. Jcchu Devi Choraria v.
Union of India, [1981] I S, C. R. 642 Pritam Nath Hoon v. Union oif India
W.P. [1981] 1 S. C.R. 684 referred to.
G
4. The detaining authority must keep ready all the documents relevant
to the grounds of detention and expeditiously furnish copies thereof to the
detenu on demand for making a representation. In the instant case, the State
Government acted in a cavalier fashion in dealing with the detenu's applica-
tion for copies of all the relevant documents. The detaining authority failed
to apply his mind and abdicated his functions of supplying the copies of docu-
H ments on which the order of detention was based. He passed on the papers
to the Collector of Customs,. who in his turn ,referred the matter to the Direc-
torate of Revenue Intelligence. Even after the replies were received the docu-
ments were lying in the Maritralaya for 9 days without being placed before
MANGALBHAI v. MAHARASHTRA (Sen,!.) 853

the detaining authority. No reasonable explanation is furnished for this delay. A.
There was unexplained delay o( 4,3 days in supplying copies of such documents.
The continued detention was thus bad. [858H-859F]
5. When the liberty of the subject is involved whether under the Preven-
tive Detention Act or the Maintenance of Internal Security Act or the Conser-
vation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act or any
other law providing for preventive detention, it is the bounden duty of the
Court to satisfy itself that all the safeguards provided by the law have been
scrupulously observed and. that the subject is not deprived of his personal
JibeJ1ly otherwise than in accordance ~ith law. [861H]
Narendra Purshotam Umrao v. B. B. Gujral & O:rs. (1979] 2 SCR 315
referred to. .
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 724 of 1980.
c
Under Article 32 of the Constitution
Ram Jethmalani and Miss Rani Jethmalani for the petitioner.
M. N. Phadke and M. N. Shroff for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D
SEN J.-This petition for the granu of writ of Habeas Corpus
is for the release of one Bhalabhai Motiram Patel, who has been de-
tained by an order of the State Government of Maharashtra dated
February 12, 1980 under sub-s. (1) of s. 3 of the Conservation of
Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on being satisfied that it was neces- E
sary to detain him 'with a view to preventing him from abetting the
smuggling of goods and engaging in transport of smuggled goods'.
At the conclusion of the hearing on July 30, 1980 we made an order
for the release of the detenu since we were of the view that his
'continued detention' was invalid. We now proceed to give reasons
F
therefor.
The facts emerging from the grounds of detention are that the
detenu was acting· as a 'courier' between Messrs S.K. Malhotra Imports
& Exports, Brussels having a widespread network abroad and Messrs
Apex Distributors, Bombay who were engaged in a criniinal conspiracy
to smuggle contraband goods on a wide scale. G

It was conceded at the Bar that the grounds for detention set out
the facts with sufficient degree of particularity and they did furnish
sufficient nexus for forming subjective satisfaction of ,the detaining
authority. The order of detention was, therefore, not challenged on
the ground that the ground& furnished were not adequate or sufficient H
for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, or for making of an
effective representation. ' • ···r· ,•i ·>:i·
,,~. -···:.~.
,.r .• .;.i,
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.

A In support of the pettfam, two points are raised challenging the
validity of the 'continued detention' of toe detenu both on procedural
grounds, namely (1) there was undue delay in furnishing the documents,
statements and writings referred to and relied upon in the order of
detention to enable the detenu to prepare or cause to be prepared his
representation against the said order of detention and (2) there was a
B failure on the p1lrt of the Central Govermflent' within a reasonable time
to consider and deal with his application for revocation of the detention
order under sub-s.(1) of s.11 of the Act.

On February 12, 1980 the State Government of Maharashtra
served the detenu with an order of detention issued under sub-s.(1) of
c s.3 of the Act and directed that he shall be detained in the Central Jail,
Nagpur. Along with the order of detention, he was served with the
grounds for detenti:on. The detenu through his solicitors' letter dated
March 8, 1980, addressed to the Under Secretary to the Government
of Maharashtra, Home Department, Bombay made a request that
'all the documents, statements, and writings' referred to and relied
D upon in the detention order, be furnished to him, to enable him to
prepare or cause to be prepared his representation against such deten·
tion. It was received in the Home Department, Mantralaya, Bombay
on March 10, 1980. On March 13, 1980, the Under Secretary to
the Home Department forwarded the letter to the Collector of Cus-
toms (Preventive), Bombay 'for his comments'. On the basis of the
E
request· of the Home Department the Assistant Collector of Customs
addressed a letter to the Deputy Di:rector of Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence, Bombay on March 15, 1980 for his comments. On
March 18, 1980 the Assistant Director, Revenue Intelligence wrote
a letter to the As·sistant Collector of Customs conveying the decision
F of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to supply the detenu with
copies of the documei1ts on which the order of detenti:on was based,
and the documents were forwarded for onward transmission to the
Horne Department 'for doing the needful'. The letter was received by
the Assistant Collector of Customs on March 19, 1980. On the same
day i.e. March 19, 1980, the Assistant Collector of Customs sent a
G letter to the Joint Secretary, Horne Department (Special) conveying
the decision of the Dire.ctorate of Revenue Intelli:gence to supply copies
and also forwarded a set of documents for being supplied to the
detenu. The case was put up before the Secretary to the Government,
Home Department (Transport) on March 25, 1980. On March 26,
1980 the Secretary directed that the detenu be furnished with the
H documents on which his order of detention was based. Eventually,
the documents were sent to the detenu's solicitors on March 27, 1980
by registered post and were received by them on April 1, 1980. But
MANGALBHAlv. MAHARASHTRA (Sen, J.) 855

the detenu's solicitors in the meanwhile, bad already submitted an A
incomplete representation against the order of ·detention on March
31, 1980.
The Courts have always viewed with disfavour the deteD:tion
without trial whatever be the nature of offence. The detention of indivi-
duals without trial for any length of time, however short, is wholly
B
inconsistent with the basic ideas of our Government. This has always
been the view consistently taken by this Court in a series of decisions.
It is not necessary to burden this judgment with citations of these
decisions. We say and we think it is necessary to repeat, that the
gravity of the evil to the community resulting from anti-social activities
<:an never furnish an adequate reason for invading the personal liberty c
of a citizen except in accordance with the procedure established by;
law.
This Court hai forged certain procedural safeguards in the case
of preventive detention of citizens. The constitutional imperatives
indi:cated in Art. 22(5) are two-fold: (1) the detaining authority must,
as _soon as may be, that is, .as soon as practicable, after the detention, D
communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order of detention
has been made, and (2) the detaining authority must afford the detenu
the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order
of detention. The right to make a representation implies what it means
'the right of making an effective representation'. Where certain docu-
ments are relied upon in the grounds of detention the grounds would E
be incomplete without such documents. The detenu, tlierefore, has
the right to be furnished with the grounds of ·detention along with the
documents relied upon.
The power of preventive detention by the Government under the
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Acti- ·F
vities Act, 1974 is necessarily subject to the limitation enjoined on
the exercise of such power by Art. 22(5) of the Constitution, as
<:onstrued by this Court.
The case raises the fundamental issue : Who is to be arbiter of
what the Constitution says ? In matters relating to preventive detention,
G
the Executive is subject to the Court's authority. The Court, not the
Executive, has the 'ultimate authority' to interpret the law. Although
the Executive has large potential powers, limitations and restraints
on that power are built into the Constitution.
In a series of decisions, this court has, on a construction of
Art. 22(5) of the Constitution, read with sub-s.(3) of s.3 of 1the Act, H
held that 'the right of making an effective representation' carries
with it the right to have the documents relied upon in the grounds of
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [198i] 1 S.C.R.

A detention : RamchOJldra A. Kamat v. Union of India,( 1 ) Frances
Coralie Mullin V;. W. C. Khambra,( 2 ) Smt. lcchu Devi Choraria v.
Union of lndia( 3 ) and Pritam Nath Hoon v. Union of India.(!) In
Kamat's case it is laid down that if there is undue delay in furnishing
the st:;itements and documents relied upon in the grounds of detention,
the right to make an effective representation is denied, and the deten-
B tion becomes illegal. It was observed :

"The right to make a representation is a fundamental right. .

c
The representation thus made should be considered expeditiously
by the government. In order to make an effective representa-
tion, the defenu is entitled to obtain information relating to the
/
j
grounds of detention. When the grounds of detention are served
on the detenu, he is entitled to ask for copies of the statem~nts
and documents referred to in the grounds of detention to enable
hlm tO make an effective representation. When the deten:u
makes a request for such documents, they should be supplied to
him expediti:ously. The detaining authority in preparing the
D grounds would have referred to the statements and documents
relied on in the grounds of detention and would be ordinarily
available with him - when copies of such documents are asked
for by the detenu. the detaining authority should be in a position
to supply them wrth reasonable expedition. What is reasonable
expedition will depend on the facts of each case.
E
It is the duty of the detaining authority to satisfactorily
explain the defay, if any, in furnishing of these documents. "'t-

F

G

(1) [1980] 2 SCR 1072.
H (2) [1980] 2 SCR 1095.
(3) [1981] 1 S.C.R. 642.
(4) [1981] 1 S.C.R. 684.
MANGALBHAI v. MAHARASHTRA (Sen, J.) 857

· . The rationale of the decision is that the right to be supplied with A
copies of the documents, statements and other materials relied upon
in the grounds of detention without any undue delay flows directly
as a necessary corollary from the right conferred on the detenu to be
afforded the earliest opportunity of making a repre~entation against
the detention, because unless the former right is available the latter
cannot be meaningfully exercised. B

In Frances Coralie Mullin's case the Court, however, added a
note of caution :
" .. the time-imperative can never be ctbsolute or obsessive.
The Court's observations are not to he so understood."
c
The nature of the constitutional obl!gation to furnish ihe state-
ments and documents relied upon in the grounds' of detention to
enable the detenu to make an effective representation against his
detention under Art. 22(5) read with sub-s. (3) of s. 3 of the Act.
has been reiterated in Smt. lcchu Devi Choraria's case and Pritam
D
Nath Boon's· case. In Smt. Choraria's case one of us, Bhagwati J.,
has dealt with the question at some length, and he observes :

"It will oe seen that one of the basic requirements of
clause (5) of Article 22 is that the authority making the order
of detention must, as soon as may · fie, communicate to the
detenu the grounds on which the order of detention has been E
made and under sub-section (3) of 5·ection 3 of the COFE-
POSA Act, the words "as soon as may be" have been trans-
lated to mean "ordinarily not later than five days and in
exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in
writing not later than fifteen days, from the date of detention."
F
The grounds of detention must therefore ·be furnished to the
detenu ordinarily within five days from the date of detention,
but in exceptional circumstances and for-:reasons to be recorded
in writing, the time for furnishing the grounds of detention may
stand extended but in any event it cannot be later than fifteen
days from the date of detention."
G
Having pointed out the two outside time-limits provided by sub-s. (3)
~ of s. 3 of the Act, he further says :
"Now it is obvious that when clause (5) of ArtiCle 22 and
sub-section (3) of sectfon 3 of the COFEPOSA Act provide
that the grounds of detention should be communicated to the H
detenu within five or fifteen days, as the case may be, what is
meant is that the grounds of detention in their entirety must be
13-645 S. C. India/SO
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.

A furnished to the detenu. If there are any documents, statements
or other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention, they
must also be communicated to the detenu, because being
incorporated in the grounds of detention, they ~orm part of the
grounds and the grounds furnished to the detenu cannot ee &aid
to be complete without them.
B
* * * * * *
There can therefore be no doubt that on a proper construc-
tion of clause (5) of Article 22 read with section 3, sub-
section (3) of' the COFEPOSA Act, it is necessary for the valid
c continuance of detention that subject to clause (6) of Article 22
copies of the documents, statements and other materials relied
upon in the grounds of detention should be furnished to the
detenu alongwith the grounds of detention or in any event not
later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for
reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days
D from the date of detention. If this requirement of clause (5) of
Artide 22 read with section 3, sub-section .(3) is not satisfied,
the continued detention of the detenu would be illegal and void."
Alternatively, he observes :
"It may be pointed out that even if our interpretation of
E the words "the grounds' on which the order has been made" in
clause (5) of Article 22 and section 3 sub-section (3) of the
COFEPOSA Act be wrong and these words do not include the
documents, statements, and other materials relied upon in the
grounds of detention, it is unquestionable that copies of such
documents, statements and other materials must be supplied to
F the detenu without any unreasonable delay, because otherwise
the detenu would not be able to make an effective representation
and the fundamental right conferred on him to be afforded the
earliest opportunity of making a representation against his
detention would be denied to him."

G We refrain from expressing any final opinion on the construction
placed in Smt. Choraria's case on sub-s. (3) of s. 3 of the Act.

In spite of this Court's decision in Ramchandra A. Kamat case
(supra) holding that a detenu is entitled under Art. 22(5) of the
Constitution read with sub-s. (3) of s. 3 of the Act, to be served· with
H copies of all the relevant documents relied upon in the grounds of
detention, it is somewhat strange that the State Government acted
in a cavalier fashion in dealing with the detenu's application to be
MANGALBHAI v. MAHARASHTRA (Sen,!.) 859

S]lpplied · with copies of such documents. What makes it worse is A
that in utter defiance of this Court's decision in.Kamat's case. P. V.
Nayak, Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Depart-
ment (Transport) to whom the powers of making an order of deten-
tion under sub-s. (3) of s. 3 have been delegated under the Rules
of Business and is, therefore, the detaining authority, should have
come forward with a counter-affidavit dated June 13, 1'980 stating: B

"I deny that I was under constitutional obligation to supply
the documents and statements relied upon in the grounds of
detenti:on. I say that the grounds of detention were elaborate,
precise and clear and the copies of the documents and statements
were not necessary for making an effective representation." . c
This shows lack of awareness' of his constitutional obligation. What
followed is not difficult to underst~nd. Though the detenu's letter
dated March 8, 1980 making a request for being furnished with
copies of 'all documents, statements and writings', upon which the .
D
detention order was based, was admittedly received in the Mantra-
laya oil March 10, 1980 the Under-Secretary, Home Department
instead of acting upon that request within a reasonable time, for-
warded the application to the Collector of Customs (Preventive),
Bombay 'for his comments' on March 13, 1980. On the basis of the
request of the Home Department, ,fue Assistant Collector of Customs E
addressed a letter to the Deputy Director of the Directorate of
Revenue Intelligence, Bombay, on March 15, 1980 'for his comments".

It, therefore, appears that the Secretary to the Government nf
Maharashtra, Home Department (Transport), who was the detain-
ing authority, failed .to apply his mind and abdicated his functions F
of supplying the copies of documents on which the order of detention
wa~ based, to the Collector of Customs, who in his turn referred the
matter to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The decision of
the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to supply the copies was
-conveyed to the Home Department on March 19, 1980; and on the
same day, the Assistant Collector of Customs forwarded a set of the G
relevant documents to the Home Department. The documents were
admittedly lying in the Mantralaya from March 19, 1980 to March 27,
1980, i.e., for nine days. The application of the detenu for grant of
copies was, however, not placed before the Secretary, Home Depart-
ment till March 25, 1980 and he was not furnished with copies till
April 1, 1980 leaving him with no other alternative but to make his · H
representation without having an opportunity to peruse the documents
and make his submissions with reference to them.
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.

.A From the narration of facts', it is quite obvious that no one really
wanted to take a decision in the matter of grant of copies. The
Secretary to the Government, Home Department (Transport) left the
decision to the Collector of Customs (Preventive), who left it to the
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. We could understand if the
Collector of CUtstoms had sworn an affidavit explaining the reason
B why he could not attend to the matter between March 13, 1980 and
March 19, 1980 i.e., for seven days. Further, there is no explana-
tion whatever forthcoming for the delay between March 19, 1980
when the documents were received in the Home Department and
March 25, 1980 when the application of the detenu was put up before
the Secretary to the Government, Home Department for orders.
c
When the matter came up for hearing before one of us,
Venkatramiah J., as the Vacation Judge, on June 17, 1980, the State
Government was directed to file an affidavit explaining the time spent
between March 10, 1980 and March 27, 1980 since there was no
explanation forthcoming \n the affidavit dated June 13, 1980 sworn
D by C. L. Mulherkar, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maha-
rashtra, Home Department (Speci'lil). In furtherance of that direc-
tion, B. S. Shetye, Desk Officer, Home Department (Special) has
sworn an affidavit dated June 18, 1980 to the effect:
"On 18th March 1980 a letter was addressed by the
E Assi:stant Director, D.R.I. to the Assistant Collector of-Customs
informing him about the decision to give copies and the copies
of the statements, etc. were forwarded to the Customs for
onward transmission to the Home Department of Maharashtra
Govt. for doing the needful. The said letter dated 18th March,

F
1980 was received by the Assistant Collector of Customs on
19th Ma:rch, 1980. On the same day i.e. 19th March, 1980
_j
the Assistant Collector of Customs addressed a letter to the
Joint Secretary, Home Department (Speci:al), Mantralaya, Bom-
bay to communicate the decision of the D.R.I. to supply copies
,and also forwarded a set of relevant documents for being sup-
plied to M/s. Mahimtura and Company.
G
I say that the Home Department received the said letter
and the copies of the documents on 19th Maren 1980. On
21st March,. 1980, after scrutiny the case was submitted to the
Secretary, Home Department (Transport), Mantralaya, Bombay
by the Assistant through concerned officer&. I say that 22nd
H March, 1980 and 23rd March, 1980 were holidays in Maha-
rashtra as 22nd March, 1980 was 4th Saturday and· 23rd March
was Sunday. 24th March, 1980 was an optional holiday on
MANGALBHAI v . .MAHARASHTRA (Sen, J.) 861

account of Chaitra Sud 15. The case was, therefore, put up to A
the Secretary on 25th March, 1980 by the Deputy Secretary. A
formal decision to supply the copies was necessary and there-
fore the case was put up before the Secretary on 25th March,
1980. On 26th March, 1980 the Secretary, Home Department
(Transport) accepted the request of the detenu's advocate for
supply of copies." B
He goes on to explain that it is not the practice of the Home Depart-
ment to retain the documents , or copies thereof, after an order of
detention is passed. According to him, the documents were taken
away by the officers of the Drrectorate of Revenue Intelligence and
no copies were made or retained by ,the Home Department. c
. This reflects a sad state of affairs in the Home Department.
When the law enjoins the detaining authority by sub-s. (3) of s. 3
of the Act to serve the detenu with the grounds of detention within
five days of the making of the order of detention, it is reasonable to
expect that the Home Department would retain the documents or
have copies made thereof for being supplied to the detenu, if asked D
for, for the purpose of making his representation. The Government
must evolve some process by which the requirements of Art. 22(5) of
the Constitution read with sub-s. (3) of s. 3 of the Act can be com-
plied with as expeditiously as possible.
The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of
Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 is enacted to serve a laudable object. E
It is a measure to prevent smuggling of goods into or out of India
and to check diversion of foreign exchange by .immobilising the
persons engaged in smuggling, foreign exchange racketeering and
related activities by preventive detention of such persons. Violations
of foreign exchange regulations and smuggling activitie~ are having
an increasingly deleterious effect on the national economy and F
thereby a serious adverse effect on the security of the State. Such
economic offences disrupt the economic life of the community as a
whole. It is necessary to protect the basic economic order of the
nation. Nevertheless, the Act is a law relating to preventive deten-
tion. That being so, the power of detention exercisable under sub-
G
s. (1) of s. 3 of the Act is subject to the limitations imposed by the
Constitution. As observed by this Court in Narendra Purshotam
Umrao v. B. B. Gujral & Ors.(1) when the liberty of the subject is
involved, whether it is under the Preventive Detention Act or the
Maintenance of Internal Security Act or the Conservation of Foreign
Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Aci or any other H
Jaw providing for preventive detention :
(1) [1979) 2 S.C.R. 315.
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.

A "It is the bounden duty of the Court to satisfy itseU that
all the safeguards provided by the law have been scrupuiously
observed and that the subject is not deprived of his personal
liberty otherwrse than in accordance with law."
The community has a vital interest in the proper enforcement of its
B laws, particularly in an area such as conservation of foreign exchange
and prevention of smuggling activities in dealing elfecti:vely with
persons engaged in such smuggling and foreign exchange racketeering
by ordering their preventive detention and at the same time, in
assuring that the law is not used arbitrarily to suppress the citizen
of his right to Hfe and liberty. The Government must, tnerefore,
c ensure that the constitutional safeguards of Art. 22(5) read with
sub-s. (3) of s. 3 of the Act are fully complied with.
· In the view we take of this case, the question whether there was
such unreasonable delay in disposal of the detenu's application for
revocation made under sub-s. (1) of s. 11 of the Act as to render
his continued detention invalid is, in any event, basically irrelevant.
D
For these reasons, the order of detention passed by the State
Government of Maharashtra dated February 12, 1980 detaining
Bhalabhai Motiram Patel under sub-s. (1) of s. 3 of the Conservation
of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,
197 4 is set aside. There shall be no order as to cm.ts.

P.B.R.. Petition allowed.