IMPORTANT POINT
There is no constitutional right of a detenu to make successive representations nor is there corresponding obligation on Competent Authority to consider and dispose of such representations unless the subsequent representation disclosed "fresh ground" or "fresh material" or any subsequent event" justifying consideration.

JUDGMENT

B.P. Singh, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 24th July, 2002 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 464 of 2002 dismissing the writ petition filed on behalf of the detenu Mohd. Yusuf Razak Dhanani by his father Shri Abdul Razak Dawood Dhanani appellant herein, challenging his detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA ).

2. It is not in dispute that the order of detention dated 20th February, 2002 was passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, who was specially empowered under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA in this behalf. The order of detention as well as the grounds of detention were served on the detenu on 26th February, 2002. The detenu on 12th April, 2002 submitted a representation to the detaining authority, the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance as also to the Chairman of the COFEPOSA Central Advisory Board. In the said representation various grounds were raised challenging the order of detention and praying that the order of detention be revoked as there was no sufficient cause for the appellant s detention. The Advisory Board considered the case of the detenu on 19th April, 2002 but the opinion of the Advisory Board was not in favour of the release of the detenu. Thereafter the detaining authority passed an order on 6th May, 2002 rejecting the representation of the detenu after fully considering the same. By order dated 8th May, 2002 the representation of the detenu was rejected by the Central Government after careful consideration.

3. The case of the appellant is that he made a second representation on 19th April, 2002 but the same was not considered and the order of detention was confirmed. Before the High Court it was urged on behalf of the appellant that the detenu had made a third representation on 14th May, 2002 but the appellant has not made any submission before us with regard to the said third representation, and therefore the finding of the High Court on this aspect of the matter has not been challenged before us.

4. It was submitted before us by the appellant that in the second representation of April 19, 2002 new grounds had been taken by the detenu challenging the order of detention. This representation had been sent to the Advisory Board with a request that the same may be forwarded to all other authorities competent under the law to revoke the order of detention. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us, relying upon the judgments of this Court in Amir Shad Khan & Anr. v. L Hmingliana & Ors. AIR 1991 SC 1983 and Smt. Gracy v. State of Kerala & Anr.: (1991) 2 SCC 1 that when such a representation is received by the Advisory Board with a request to forward the same to the appropriate authorities, the Advisory Board is under an obligation to forward the same to the competent authorities. Learned Additional Solicitor General did not dispute the proposition that in such a case it is only appropriate that the Advisory Board must forward the representation to the concerned authorities. In the instant case the meeting of the Advisory Board took place on 19th April, 2002 and the second representation also bears the same date. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that all the relevant materials, including the second representation which formed part of the papers which came from the Advisory Board, were considered by the Central Government while rejecting the representation by order dated 8th May, 2002.

5. On the other hand counsel for the appellant submitted that the power under Section 11 of COFEPOSA is independent of the power to confirm the order of detention under Section 8(f) of the Act. Both of the powers have to be exercised separately. The Advisory Board is under an obligation to forward the representation to the concerned authorities if such a request is made to