Judgment

SARKARIA, J.:- This judgment will cover two writ petitions. Writ Petition (Crl.) 481 of 1980 is by Mariam Tayabali Zanzibarwala seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the release of the detenu who is her husband. Writ Petition (Crl.) 528 of 1980 has been filed by Tushar Thakker on behalf of the detenu, Harish Vrajalal Thakker.

2. The premises of the detenu in writ petition 481/1980 were searched by Officers of the Directorate of Enforcement in connection with certain alleged illegal remittances made by certain persons through M/s. Thomas Cook (Overseas) Ltd., and some recoveries of purported incriminating documents were seized. The detenu was arrested on the same day and remanded to judicial custody. He was released later on bail on the condition that he should attend the Office of the Directorate of Enforcement daily. On his applications this condition was progressively relaxed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

3. On September 5, 1979, the detenu was arrested in pursuance of a detention order dated August 31, 1979 issued by Shri B. B. Gujral, Additional Secretary, in the Ministry Of Finance (Revenue), Government of India. The grounds of detention under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA were also supplied to him on the same date.

4. On September 8, 1979, the detenu addressed a letter to the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, asking for supply of copies of the documents mentioned in that letter, which, according to the detenu, were necessary to enable him to make an effective and purposeful representation. Since copies were not being supplied, the detenu on September 15, 1979 wrote through his Advocate to the Deputy Director of Enforcement, Bombay, enclosing therewith a copy of the letter dated September 8, 1979 which he had earlier addressed to the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, requesting for supply of the copies mentioned in the said letter immediately. In the reply to the said letter received on September 22, 1979 by the Advocate of the detenu, it was stated that instead of copies, the detenu could inspect the same documents in the Office of the Collector on September 24, 1979. On September 25, 1979, the detenus Advocate under cover of his letter of that date, sent the detenus representation dated September 24, 1979 to the Jail Authorities, with a request that the same be forwarded for consideration to the Government of India. This representation was received by the Jail Authorities; on September 25, 1979, but was not considered by the Central Government up to March 26, 1980, the date of the institution of the writ petition.

5. No copies of the documents were supplied to the detenu, although by another letter dated Sept. 28, 1979, the Assistant Director of Enforcement again made an offer that the detenu could inspect the documents. In reply, the detenu through his Advocate addressed a communication on October 2, 1979 that it was not possible to take inspection of the documents and that without the copies of the necessary documents it was not possible to prepare the detenus representation. In this letter, he further informed that the detenu was willing to deposit any advance charges for preparing the copies.

6. By letter, dated October 15, 1979, the detenu was informed that his representation, dated September 24, 1979, had been considered by the detaining authority and rejected. In the meantime, the Advisory Board held its meeting and the detenu received a letter on November 3, 1979, informing that his detention had been confirmed under Section 8F for one year with effect from September 5, 1979.

7. The detenu sent a representation in the form of an application to the Central Government on December 26, 1979 praying that his detention be revoked under Section 11 of the COFEPOSA. This application also was not considered by the Central Government, but the detenu again received a communication dated February 7, 1980 that the said representation had been considered by the detaining authority and rejected