Judgment

Sarkaria, J.

( 1 ) -THIS is a writ petition filed by one Sabir Ahmed to challenge the detention of his brother, Dawood Hasan Sheikh Ibrahim, under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA ).

( 2 ) THE detenu was in the custody of the Customs when on 8/09/1979, he was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade court, Bombay and was remanded to judicial custody and later on granted bail by the Sessions Judge by an Order, dated 28/09/1979.

( 3 ) ON 2/10/1979, an order of detention passed under S. 3 (1) of COFEPOSA by Shri Pradhan, the secretary to Maharashtra government in the Home Department, was served on him. The grounds of detention were also served on him on the same date.

( 4 ) ON 14/11/1979, the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority, in which he inter alia asked for supply of the copiesof documents and statements relied upon in the grounds of detention. The representation of the detenu was not dealt with by Shri Pradhan, but by the Minister of State in the Home Ministry of the State government, and was rejected on 10/12/1979. The Minister is said to have been authorised to deal with the representation of detenus by a standing order made by the Chief Minister on 3/12/1979. In the meantime, the Advisory Board met and considered the representation of the detenu and made a report to the government on 6/12/1979 for approval of the detention. The said minister had dealt with the representation and rejected it after the Board had made its report to the government.

( 5 ) ON 19/11/1979, the detenu made an application to the central government for revocation of the order of his detention under S. 11 of COFEPOSA, and this has not been dealt with by that government till today.

( 6 ) MR. Jethmalani, appearing for the detenu, has made four submissions :

(1) The Minister of State was not competent to dispose of the representation of the detenu, because the Order dated 3/12/1979, made by the Chief Minister did not invest him with the necessary authority to dispose of the representation.

{2) The representation has not been dealt with expeditiously by the State government. On the other hand, it was mechanically sent for remarks to the Customs Department on 18/11/1979, and thereafter the report of the Customs Department was received by the State government on 28/11/1979.

(3) The application of the detenu for obtaining copies of the relevant documents was improperly rejected, and as a result, he has been deprived of his constitutional right of making an effective representation.

(4) The detenu had a right to move the central government for revocation of the order of his detention. For that purpose, he submitted a petition addressed to the central government on 19/11/1979. But, the central government has callously ignored it and has not dealt with it so far. This delay and inaction for an indefinite period, which now exceeds four months, vitiates the detention. Reliance for this contention lias been placed on two recent judgments of this court in Shyam Ambalal Siroya v. Union of India, by a bench of three learned Judges ; and Tara Chand v. State of Rajasthan, by a bench of two learned Judges.

( 7 ) WE will take the last contention first, because, in the course of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while reserving his arguments on other points, has dealt with this point, only.

( 8 ) ON the other hand, regarding contention 4, Mr. Datar, appearing for the central government, submits that S. 11 of COFEPOSA merely confers a discretion on the central government to revoke or modify an order of detention made by the State government. It does not confer any right or privilege on the detenu to make a representation to the central government under that section.

( 9 ) IN line with the same argument, Mr. Nain, appearing for the respondent-State, submits that S. 11 merely gives a power which is tobe exercised by the