JUDGMENT

SARKARIA, J.: — This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for the grant of a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner has been detained with effect from October 24, 1977 by an order passed by the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra under S. 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short called COFEPOSA). Reference was made to the Advisory Board on 24-11-1977. At its sitting held on 23-12-1977, the Board rejected the representation of the detenu and opined that there was sufficient cause for the detention.

2. The detention has been challenged mainly on the ground that no order under Cl. (f) of S. 8 of the Act confirming the detention was passed by the appropriate Government within three months of the commencement of the detention and, as such, the continuance of the detention beyond the initial period of three months was violative of the mandate of Art. 22 (4) of the Constitution. In support of this contention, Mr. Ashoke Sen, appearing for the petitioner, has cited five decisions of this Court - Shibapada Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC 1356; Ujjal Mondal v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC 1446; Deb Sadhan Roy v. State of West Bengal, (1972) 2 SCR 787; Micki Khan v. The State of West Bengal 1972 SC 2262 and Satyadeo Prashad Gupta v. State of Bihar, (1975) 2 SCR 854.

3. As against the above, Mr. Phadke, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, contends that the view taken in the aforesaid decisions of this Court, is not in confirmity with the plain language of Art. 22 (4). In the counsels view, what Art. 22 (4). requires is that no law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless an Advisory Board consisting of persons having the qualifications specified therein, reports before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is, in its opinion, sufficient cause for such detention. This requirement - proceeds the argument - was fully complied with in the instant case because the Advisory Board had made such a report within three months of the date of detention and within 11 weeks of the receipt of the Reference from the Government. It is stressed that there is nothing in the language of Art. 22 (4) or in COFEPOSA which requires that the confirmation of the detention on the basis of the report of the Advisory Board, should also be within three months from the commencement of the detention.

4. According to Mr. Phadke, COFEPOSA on the other hand clearly indicates that an order of confirmation of the detention can be passed by the appropriate Government within a reasonable time even after the expiry of the initial period of three months detention. In this connection, counsel has adverted us to Clause (c) of S. 8, which requires that the Advisory Board shall, on receiving the Reference from the appropriate Government, submit its report as to whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention, within 11 weeks from the date of the detention, while under the corresponding provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act , 1971, the period prescribed for the report of the Advisory Board is ten weeks only. The point sought to be made out is that if the Advisory Board makes a report that there is sufficient cause for the detention, to the appropriate Government just before the expiry of the aforesaid period of 11 weeks, then hardly about 13 or 14 days would be left to the Government to consider whether or not the detention should be confirmed. This period, it is contended, left to the Government for taking a decision on the report of the Advisory Board is too short from practical point of view.

5. On the above premises, Mr. Phadke urges that the aforesaid decisions of this Court - none of which was a case of detention under COFEPOSA - need reconsideration.

6. Before dealing with these arguments, it may be noted that the aforesaid ground of chall