JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 8th November, 2008 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) Nos.79-80 of 2008 by which both the writ petitions were dismissed. We propose to dispose of both the appeals by this judgment.

3. These writ petitions (Habeas Corpus) were filed by Mrs. Thahira Haris, wife of the detenu B. Mohammed Haris challenging the order of detention dated 24th May, 2008 passed by the Additional Secretary & Principal Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Home Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore on a number of grounds. Grounds 15 and 17 relate to the detenu. The main allegation against the detenu is abetting in smuggling of red sanders out of the country.

4. In pursuance to the show cause notice issued by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, statement of objections (counter affidavit) was filed by the detaining authority. According to the appellants, the High Court did not consider the case in proper perspective and dismissed both the writ petitions filed by the detenu. The detenu, aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High Court, has preferred these appeals before this Court on the following grounds:

(i) non-supply of relied upon and relevant documents vitiates the detention order;

(ii) the detention order is vitiated on the ground of non-application of mind;

(iii) the detention order is liable to be quashed because of failure to place all relevant

documents before the detaining authority; and

(iv) the prejudice cannot be urged in detention matters.

5. We propose to deal with the impact of non-supply of relied upon and relevant documents on the detention order.

6. In ground no.15 of detention, it is categorically mentioned that the detenu was abetting in smuggling of red sanders. Again, in ground no.17, the detaining authority while recording its satisfaction has again reiterated that "I am satisfied that you are abetting in smuggling red sanders as described above". In this light, we would examine whether it was imperative for the detaining authority to supply document at Sl. No. 90 i.e. detention order of Anil Kumar, the master mind. It may be pertinent to mention that the order of detention was passed against Anil Kumar on 13.9.2004. According to the detaining authority, Anil Kumar is the master mind in the entire operation and allegation against the detenu is of abetting him in smuggling, therefore, any order of detention passed against Anil Kumar assumes great significance and the same would weigh heavily with the detaining authority while passing the detention order.

7. Admittedly, the order of detention of Anil Kumar dated 13.9.2004 was not supplied to the detenu. The document mentioned at serial number 90 is the detention order dated 13.9.2004 of Anil Kumar, the master mind, whereas the document supplied to the detenu was only the confirmation order dated 29.1.2005 passed under section 8 of the COFEPOSA Act. Both are different and distinct and, therefore, the High Court was wrong in holding that the detention order and confirmation order was one and the same. The period of detention in such case would be reckoned from 13.9.2004 and not from 29.1.2005.

8. It is interesting to note that even according to the learned Additional Government Advocate, who has represented the detaining authority before the High Court, the detention order of Anil Kumar and Kannan was relevant. The Division Bench noted the submission of the detaining authority, which is reflected in para 14 of the judgment and reads as under:

"....The role of Anil Kumar and Kannan being clear in the instant case, their past activities and detention orders were relevant......"

9. According to the detaining authority, copy of the detention order issued under COFEPOSA is a relied upon document. This document was admittedly not supplied to the detenu. Now it has become imperative to examine the settled law crystallized by a catena