JUDGMENT

SARKARIA, J. :— This judgment deals with two writ petitions for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, which were allowed by us by a short Order, dated April 23, 1980.

2. In Writ Petition 434 of 1980, the detenu is one Indru Ramchand Bharvani, while in Writ Petition 435 of 1980, the detenu is Indrus father, Ram Chand Bharvani. The two detenus Indru and Ram Chand along with others, are carrying on business is diamonds and precious stones in partnership under the style of "M/s. Gems Impex Corporation". 35, New Marine Lines, Bombay, since 1971.

3. On November 16, 1979 the Customs Officers at Bombay raided the premises of the said firm and in the course of the raid, seized diamonds and pearls worth about Rs. 55 lakhs and also, some jewellery and Rs. 1,40,000/- in Indian currency and two gold sovereign coins. On the following day, the Customs raided the residential premises of the son, Indru, and seized two cameras and three wrist watches worth about Rs. 1.50 lakhs.

4. The detenus were arrested on November 23, 1979 and interrogated. During interrogation, the detenus claimed that the gems and other articles seized were not smuggled goods but were local materials, locally acquired. They also gave the names of four persons from whom these gems had been acquired. Both the father and the son were arrested and were produced before a Magistrate. They were released on heavy bail subject to the condition that they would attend daily before the Customs Officers and co-operate in the investigation. This condition was later on relaxed.

5. On February 16, 1980, an order of detention, dated February 15, 1980, purporting to have been made under S. 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, called COFEPOSA) by the State Government was served on the detenus. This order was authenticated by the Under-Secretary to the State Government. The grounds of detention were also served on the detenus along with the order of detention of February 16, 1980.

6. On February 18, 1980, the wife of the detenu, Ram Chand, addressed a letter to the first respondent (Under - Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra), requesting him to furnish the detenus with the material relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention. On March 25, 1980, detenu received a letter, dated March 14, 1980 from the State Government deelining the request for supply of copies to the detenu. Prior to that on March 12, 1980, the detenus moved this Court by petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution, for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus.

7. On March 11, 1980, the detenu had also sent a petition through the Central Government, complaining of the nonsupply of copies of the necessary documents. They also made, by that petition, such representations as they could, praving for revocation of the order of their detention. On April 3, 1980, the Central Government wrote to the detenus that their request for revocation had been rejected. The Central Government, however, advised the State Government to furnish the detenus with the copies of the required documents. As a result on April 3, 1980 copies were received by the detenus from the State Government under their covering letter, dated March 31, 1980.

8. On March 24, 1980, the detenu also made a representation to the State Government which, according to the information furnished at the Bar by Mr. Phadke appearing for respondent 1, was declined.

9. Shri Ram Jethmalani, appearing for the detenus, challenges the detention mainly on these grounds :

(1) The order of detention, purporting to have been signed by Shri Salvi, Secretary in the Home Department, to the Government of Maharashtra, is void because the concerned Minister of the State Government never, in fact, passed any such order and under the rules of business framed by the Government under Art. 166 of the Constitution, Shri Salvi had no authority to pass the order of detention.

(2) The detaining authority never a