Judgment

SEN, J. :- This appeal by special leave directed against a judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 5th June, 1978, dismissing a petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution, by which the prayed for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, and the connected petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by his wife for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for his release a common question and therefore they are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. A vessel knows as jamnaprasad BLS-61 valued at one lac of rupees was found grounded in a creek off the coast near village Kim-Khadi on the 20th August, 1977. On receipt of information regarding the grounding of the vessel the Customs Officers Hansot, visited the spot and examined the contents of the cargo aboard the aforesaid grounded vessel. It was laden with 12 rolls of stainless steel sheets each weighing one tonne, valued at Rs. 15,44,400/-. The aforesaid vessel and the contraband goods found aboard it were seized by the Customs Officers for action under the Customs Act, 1962. They made inquires about the whereabouts of the crew members of the aforesaid vessel jemnaprasad and were successful apprehending them and the others involved.

3. Intelligence gathered by the Customs Officers clearly indicate that the appellant was the main person connected with the smuggling of the aforesaid cargo of contraband goods, namely 12 stainless steel sheets recovered from vessel Jamnaprasad BLS-62.

4. The appellant, who ostensible carries on the business of manufacturing, sale and export of Umrao brand wick stoves, sprey pumps, cash and jewellery metal boxes, in the name and style of "Umrao Industries" and has his factory for the manufacture of the aforesaid items at village Kim, has been detained by an order of the Addl. Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi, dated the 1st of February, 1978 under sub-s. (1) of S. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods. He was arrested and placed under detention on the 5th of February, 1978, and is at present detained in the Central Prison, Bombay. At the time of his arrest, the appellant was served with the order of detention together with the grounds of detention with full particulars on which the order of detention was based. On 15th February, 1978 the case was referred by the Government to the Advisory Board as required under Section 8 (b) of the Act to enable the Board to make its report under sub-cl. (a) of Cl. (4) of Article 22 of the Constitution.

5. The appellant made two representations against his detention to the Government, one dated the 4th and the other dated the 6th of March, 1978, which were received by the Government on the 7th and 8th March, 1978 respectively. The Advisory Board had, in the meanwhile addressed a letter dated 21st of February, 1978 to the Government intimating that the case would be taken up on the 13th March, asking that the detenu be produced at the hearing and the Government should also forward the representation, if any, made by the appellant, together with the comments/decision of the Government if any. On the 13th of March, the appellant was accordingly produced before the Advisory Board. The Government placed before the Board the two representations made by the appellant together with its comments. The appellant was heard in person; the Governments point of view was placed before the Advisory Board by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, who was accompanied by the Assistant Collector, Customs, Bulsar. On the 16th of March 1978, the appellant sent a telegram to the Advisory Board supplementing his oral submissions. The detaining authority rejected the representations made by the appellant on 18th of March, 1978. On 10th of April, 1978 the Advisory Board submitted its report giving its opinion t