Dr. Couto, J. - The petitioner, a nonresident Indian citizen staying at Dubai, challenges by this Writ Petition, the Detention Order dated 14th February, 1986 issued by the first respondent under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, ('COFEPOSA' Act for short).

2. The facts that led to the issuance of the said order need not be stated in detail. Suffices to say that a landing of contraband gold took place on August 8, 1985 and August 29, 1985 at Daman and 250 gold legacies were recovered by the Customs Authorities. Investigation was initiated by the said authorities and it appears that as a result thereof, it was found that one Ramji Sukar Tandel, one Bhula Bhagwan Tandel, one Kasamali Gulam Rasul and one Babu Soma and the petitioner were involved in the smuggling of the said gold. Accordingly, the first respondent issued orders of Detention on February 2, 1986 against the aforesaid persons under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. Writ Petitions challenging the respective Orders of Detention were filed before this Court on behalf of Ramji Tandel, Bhula Tandel and Kasamali Rasul. The said Writ Petitions were admitted and registered, respectively, under Nos. 7, 6 and 8 all of 1986. By judgment dated April 28, 1986, the Division Bench of this Court quashed the aforesaid Orders of Detention on the ground that relevant and material documents were not placed before the Detaining Authority and therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the said authority while issuing the Detention Orders was vitiated.

3. As regards Babu Soma, his case came before the Advisory Board and the Order of Detention issued against him was revoked on the basis of the report of the Advisory Board.

4. The Customs Authorities also initiated adjudication proceedings against twelve people by issuing Show Cause Notices to them under section 124 of the Customs Act on April 11, 1986. These proceedings were initiated on the basis of the landing of the aforesaid gold at Daman. No Show Cause Notice of any kind and on any ground was issued to the petitioner. The said proceedings were ultimately ended and an adjudication order imposing some penalties against the persons to whom the Show Cause Notices had been issued were imposed. While discussing the evidence on record, admittedly, it has been urged that no attempt had been made by the Department to identify the sender of the gold, namely the petitioner herein. The Collector who adjudicated the said proceedings while dealing with the said submission observed that. Next argument is that the department has not attempted to identify Hirabhai Somabhai Damania of Dubai. This argument has no force since the customs laws do not extend beyond the shores of this country. Further, the full particulars of Hirabhai Somabhai have not been furnished by Ramji Sukar, to enable the department to summon him from Dubai. Therefore this portion of the statement is not of a nature that could easily be corroborated".

5. The above facts are not at all denied by the respondents in their return and Mr. A.T. Kamat, Under Secretary (Home Department), Government of Goa, confines himself to raise the question of the maintainability of the petition. He submits that the petition is premature and not maintainable as the petitioner has not surrendered to the Customs Authorities, nor the Order of Detention has been served on him. Further, according to Mr. Kamat, the petition is not maintainable also on the ground that though the petition was filed by the prospective detenu, the verification was not done by him but by his wife. However, the facts above mentioned had not been at all denied and therefore, we can safely proceed on the basis that the said facts are admitted a correct.

6. Before proceeding to deal with the merits of this petition, it is necessary and expedient to deal first with the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Bhobe, the learned counsel appearing for