ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18-3-2005 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2482 of 2004 wherein the prayer of the appellant for quashing the order of detention dated 3-11-2004 purporting to be under Sections 3(1)(i) and (iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called as COFEPOSA) was dismissed.

3. The appellant herein questions the order of detention dated 3-11-2004 issued by Respondent 2 whereby the father of appellant has been detained in terms of the COFEPOSA.

4. The fact of the matter is as under:

On 20-8-2004 the detenu was intercepted by the officers of DRI after he had passed through the customs area to board the flight to Singapore. Foreign currency of USD 81000.00, Euro 7600.00 was seized from him along with 366.00 Singapore dollars which in terms of Indian currency would come to Rs 40,08,244.50p. The aforementioned amount was seized in terms of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The detenus statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was recorded wherein he claimed that the seized currency was brought by him from Singapore after necessary declaration and the same was being carried to Singapore.

5. In the order of detention it was alleged that the same was necessitated not only with a view to prevent him from bringing in future smuggled goods but also as the detenu had been engaged in transporting or keeping smuggled goods.

6. Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that from a perusal of the impugned order, it would appear that the same is almost the verbatim production of the proposal made to the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority only by altering the word "he" with "you". With a view to appreciate the aforementioned contention of the appellant we may extract the following from the order of detention:

"That you does not have a ration card; that you travels frequently to Hong Kong, Singapore, United Kingdom and sometimes to Phillippines; that you arranges and organises tours for Asians; that you does not have a tour operator licence; that you assists your tourists in shopping and sight seeing; that you does not pay any tax in India; that you does not have any vehicle in India or abroad; that you are a Green Card-holder at Hong Kong; that you travel to-and-fro from Hong Kong many times; that you are holder of Gold Card issued by Air India as you are their frequent flier; that your Gold Card number is 043809; that you have a mobile phone at Hong Kong; that your Singapore mobile number is 90448535; that no case by Indian Customs or Police has been booked against you; that no cases are booked against you abroad; that you have travelled to Hong Kong and Singapore only from Mumbai Airport; that whenever you come from Hong Kong and Singapore and if you have foreign currency you declare the same at Customs Counter and obtains Currency Declaration Form (CDP); that when you return back you take the foreign currency and submits the CDP at the Customs Counter and the Customs retain the CDP that you have taken the CDP on 4-5 previous occasions." 7. Keeping in view the nature of the submissions made at the Bar, we have directed the State to produce the records before us. Pursuant to the said direction, the records have been produced.

8. Prom a perusal of the records produced before us, it appears that the second respondent directed obtaining of some documents when the proposal for detention of the detenu was submitted. She also sought for the statement made by the detenu before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. She further took note of a purported pre-detention representation made by the detenu on 18-4-2004. Detention order was passed upon discussions made in that behalf by her with three officers including Shri P.S. Goyal, Deputy Director. It further appears that the order of detention as well as grounds there