JUDGMENT

SARKARIA, J. :— This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

2. Vasantlal D. Minawala (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) resides in Bombay, and carries on business as a gold dealer in partnership in the name and style of "Jewellers Danabhai Minawala" at 212/58, Naveri Bazar, Bombay-2.

3. On December 24, 1979, an order, dated December 18, 1979 issued under Section 3 (1) of the COFEPOSA, by Shri S. D. Deshpande, the Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), expressed in the name of the Governor, was served on the detenu. On the same date, the grounds of detention were served on the detenu.

4. On January 9, 1980, on behalf on the detenu his Advocate addressed a letter to the Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), copies of which for immediate action were endorsed to (1) the Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay; (2) the Collector of Customes; and (3) the Assistant Collector of Customs (R and I), COFEPOSA Cell, Bombay. In this letter, the Advocate requested addressees to be furnished with copies of all the material documents and statements referred to and relied upon in the grounds of detention, to enable the detenu to make an effective representation against the impugned order of detention.

5. By his reply, dated February 1, 1980, addressed to the detenus Advocate, Shri S. M. Sule, the Under Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), stated that since the grounds of detention served on the detenu were clear, elaborate and precise, the request of the detenu for supply of copies of all statements, panchanamas and other documents relied upon in the grounds of detention, it was regretted, could not be granted. This refusal was conveyed to the detenu about 23 days after he had made, through his counsel, a request for the supply of the basic documents.

6. On January 25, 1980, the detenu was served in the prison with a notice, dated January 23, 1980, issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs, calling upon the detenu to show cause why the seized goods, referred to in the grounds of detention, be not confiscated and why penal action should not be taken against him and the others. A similar notice was served on the writ-petitioner, Suryakant who is the son of the detenu. The son of the detenu, thereupon, approached the Customs Authorities and asked for the copies of the statements of the persons and the other documents referred to in the notice.

7. Pursuant to his request, on February 1, 1980, copies of all the statements of those persons, referred to in the showcause notice, were furnished to the writ-petitioner by the Customs Authorities. The writ-petitioner made these copies available to the detenu, who thereafter, on February 5, 1980, submitted a representation addressed to the detaining authority and to the Chairman of the Advisory Board.

8. By a letter, dated March 13, 1980, the detenu was informed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra that his representation, dated February 5, 1980, had been declined by the Government. Thus, it took 37 days for the Government to dispose of the representation of the detenu.

9. Mr. Soli Sorabji, appearing for the writ-petitioner, challenges the validity of the detention on these grounds:

(1) By refusing to supply the copies of the documents and statements relied upon or referred to in the grounds of detention - which was not a refusal under Article 22 (6) - the authorities had violated the constitutional imperative in Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. Even if the copies supplied to the son of the detenu are deemed to be supplied to him, then also, there was an unreasonable delay of 22 days in supplying the same, as a result of which, the detention stood vitiated.

(2) There was an inordinate and unreasonable delay of 37 days in considering the representation of the detenu, which amounted to an infringement of Articles 22 (5)