A.S. Oka, J.

1. By this Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has taken an exception to the order of Prevention of Detention dated 25th January, 2012 (Exhibit “A” to the petition). The order has been passed in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short “COFEPOSA”). The order impugned has been passed with a view to prevent the Petitioner from smuggling goods in future.

2. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has pressed into service the grounds (g) and (j) of Paragraph 7 of the Petition. The said grounds read thus:

“(g) The Petitioner says and submits that with reference to the averment made by the detaining authority in paragraph 51 of the grounds of detention, list of documents which are not legible is also enclosed, which clearly shows non-application of mind of the detaining authority. If the documents are illegible, the question arises that how the detaining authority has understood the contents of illegible documents relied on documents to pass an order of detention being subjectively satisfied. The satisfaction of the detaining authority vitiates. The Petitioner further submits that supplying illegible documents amounts to non-communication of grounds of detention. As a result of furnishing illegible documents to the Petitioner, he is deprived of making effective representation. Thus violating both the facets of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The Order of detention is illegal and bad in law, liable to be quashed and set aside.

(j) The Petitioner says and submits that he has been furnished with various documents in a compilation running into 15,080 pages along with grounds of detention. The Petitioner submits that it is categorically stated in paragraph 51 of the grounds of detention that while passing the order of detention under COFEPOSA Act, 1974, the detaining authority has referred to and relied upon the documents mentioned in the enclosed list which are also served on the Petitioner. The Petitioner says and submits that on his own saying the detaining authority admittedly says that a list of 208 documents but also at various Serial Number of the list of relied upon document is found at Annexure II of the grounds of detention. The Petitioner says and submits that it is not only 208 documents but total 333 pages documents are also found to be absolutely and totally illegible. The illegible documents cannot be read by any person with normal vision. It is not understood as to how the detaining authority read such totally illegible documents to arrive at his subjective satisfaction and ultimately passed the order of detention. These above said material documents are relevant and relied on by the detaining authority which constitute the “grounds” as held by a larger bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khudiram Das's Case. The satisfaction of the detaining authority vitiates. This also amounts to non-communication of the grounds of detention. Thus violating the first facet of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner further submits that as a result of furnishing complete illegible documents, he could not read, understood and make any effective representation, thereby he is deprived of making any effective representation at the earliest point of time, thus both the facets of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. The order of detention is illegal and bad in law, liable to be quashed.”

3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner invited our attention to the affidavits in reply filed by the Sponsoring Authority and the Detaining Authority. He submitted that admittedly 303 pages of the document produced by the Sponsoring Authority before the Detaining Authority were totally illegible. Inviting our attention to the grounds of detention served to the Petitioner, he pointed out that the said illegible documents have been relied upo