(1) SPECIAL leave granted. Arguments heard.

(2) THIS appeal on special leave is against the judgment and order passed by the High court of Karnataka on 5/10/1988 dismissing the Writ Petition No. 93 of 1988 filed by Smt. Dharmista Bhagat, sister of the detenu, Balakrishna S. Mehta against the order of detention made under S. 3(1(iii) of COFEPOSA Act . The order of detention was made on 30/04/1988 and the detenu was arrested and detained on 11/05/1988. He was served with the order of detention made by respondent 1 along with the grounds of detention. The detenu was also served with the relevant documents mentioned in the grounds of deten-tion. On 21/05/1988, the detenu made a representation to respondent 1 stating that some of the documents supplied with the grounds of deten-tion are not at ail legible and as such requested for supplying him typed copies of those documents in order to enable him to make an effective representation . On 27/05/1988 a reply was sent to the said letter under the signatures of Mr. K.N.N. Karaniha, Under secretary to the Govern-ment, Home Department (COFEPOSA Cell) wherein it has been stated that those documents are legible and as such the request for furnishing typed copies of the said documents cannot be conceded. On 6/06/1988 the detenu made a representation to respondent 1 against the said order of detention which was rejected by respondent 1. Thereafter a writ peti-tion was filed assailing the order of detention as illegal and bad. After hearing the leamed counsel for both the parties the High court dis-missed the writ petition and confirmed the order of detention holding that:

"THE recovery of five gold biscuits, the positive statements made by the detenu hirnself accepting the recovery of the gold bis-cuits from him, the opinion of the goldsmith lhat the gold is of 24 carat purity and of foreign origin and the relevant material placed in that regard, leave no manner of doubt that the satisfaction formed by the detaining authority is on the basis of the relevant material."

(3) AGAINST this impugned order rendered by the High court the instant appeal has been filed before this court. The sole ontention advanced before this court on behaif of the appellant is that the non-supply of legible copies of the vital documents referred to in the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu in spite of the representation to that effect made by the detenu renders the impugned order of detention illegal and bad inasmuch as the detenu was prevented from exercising his right to make an effective representation against the purported" order of detention issued against him, under Article 22(5 of the Constitution of India. It has been urged in this connection that the document, pan-chnama (mahajar) dated 12/02/1988 which has been specifically referred to in the list of documents supplied pari passu with the grounds of detention was not legible. The detenu immediately after receipt of the grounds made a request to the detaining authority on 21/05/1988 for giving him typed copy of the said document. This request was tumed down by the detaining authority and no legible or typed copy of the said document was supplied to the detenu to enable him to make his effective representation against the impugned order of detention made under S. 3(1(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

(4) IT has, therefore, been submitted that the procedural safeguards provided in Article 22 of the Constitution of India having not been complied with the impugned order of detention is illegal and so it is liable to be quashed and set aside.

(5) THE leamed counsel appearing on behaif of respondent 1, Union of India has contended that even though legible copy of panchnama referred to in the list of documents mentioned in the grounds of detention has not been supplied to the detenu yet the fact that Five gold biscuits of foreign marking were recovered f