JUDGMENT

SAWANT, J.- These appeals are directed against the orders dated June 27 and June 30, 1989 passed by the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 489 of 1989 and Criminal Application No. 1347 of 1989 respectively. An order of detention was passed on December 13, 1985 against respondent 1s husband, Subhash Chander Gadia under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as the "COFEPOSA"). He could not, however, be served with the said order as he was absconding. Hence a declaration was made that he was a person who fell within the category mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "SAFEMA"). Thereafter, a notice dated March 31, 1987 was issued to him under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the SAFEMA to show cause as to why the properties mentioned in the schedule to the said notice should not be forfeited to the Central Government for reasons recorded in the accompaniment. A copy of the notice along with the schedule of the properties and the copy of the reasons for forfeiture of the property was also sent to respondent 1 by letter of February 27, 1989.

2. Respondent 1 filed the aforesaid writ petition in the High Court challenging the detention order of December 13, 1985 as well as the show cause notice of March 31, 1987. The High Court by its impugned decision held that the writ petition was maintainable for challenging the detention order even though the detenu was not served with the order and he had thus not surrendered to the authorities. The High Court further directed that the detention order, the grounds of detention, and the documents relied upon for passing the detention order be furnished to the detenu and that they should also be produced before the court. The High Court also directed the authorities to supply the said documents to the counsel for respondent 1. The said order was passed on June 27, 1989 and the authorities were directed to furnish the documents to respondent 1 by 5.30 p.m. on June 29, 1989. Thereafter, the matter was directed to stand over till July 3, 1989 to enable respondent 1 to consider whether any amendment to the writ petition was required. The Court also directed that the matter be posted for further direction on June 30, 1989.

3. The Assistant Director of Enforcement filed an affidavit on June 29, 1989 stating that under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, the grounds of detention have to be given to the person when he is detained. Since even the constitutional mandate did not go further than that, the detaining authority could not be compelled to furnish the documents to anybody else other than the detenu after he is detained. The authority also showed its willingness to produce the documents for the perusal of the High Court without showing them first to respondent 1.

4. The matter came up before the learned Judges on June 30, 1989. The learned Judges found that no application was made for any extension in time to carry out the orders of the Court nor was any statement made that it was difficult to comply with the order. The learned Judges, therefore, held that the officers were guilty of contempt of court and directed the matter to be listed on July 3, 1989 to take appropriate action for contempt of court. It is at that stage that the special leave petitions giving rise to the present appeals were filed before this Court. This Court issued notice on the special leave petitions and granted stay of the High Courts direction, pending the notice. By another order of July 21, 1989, this court admitted the special leave petitions and directed the appeals to be listed in the last week of August 1989. By their order of April 5, 1990, the two learned Judges of this Court directed that since the appeals involved questions of great public interest and importance, they should be referred to a bench of three Judges