The main legal point established is that the Detaining Authority must consider the proposal for detention without piecemeal and must decide the detenues' representation without unexplained delay, in accordance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

A.S. GADKARI, J.

The present Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred by the Petitioners, challenging the separate orders dated 4th February, 2015 passed by the Respondent No.2 in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation Of Foreign Exchange and Prevention Of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ('COFEPOSA Act' for short). All the three impugned orders are the orders of preventive detention against the detenues therein. Writ Petition No.1048 of 2015 has been preferred by the brother of detenu Ramdas Shivaji More. Writ Petition No.1049 of 2015 has been preferred by the cousin brother of detenu Pandurang Ramchandra Jadhav @ Popat Jadhav. Writ Petition No.1050 of 2015 has been preferred by the cousin brother of detenu Sagar Vishnu Suryavanshi. The detention orders dated 4th February, 2015 passed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act which are the subject matter in Writ Petition No.1048 of 2015 and Writ Petition No.1050 of 2015 have been passed with a view to prevent the detenues therein, in future from engaging in transporting of smuggled goods. The impugned order dated 4th February, 2015 in Writ Petition No.1049 of 2015 has been passed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act by the Respondent No.2, the Detaining Authority with a view to prevent him in future from smuggling of goods. All the aforesaid three orders of preventive detention passed under the CAFEPOSA Act have been served upon the respective detenues along with the grounds of detention on 5th February, 2015 and the detenues have been detained in Nashik Road Central Prison.

The learned counsel appearing for the respective parties unanimously submitted before us that though the cases relate to three different detenues, the facts / dates involved and grounds of challenge raised in the present Petitions are almost identical and hence, we are deciding all the cases by one common order.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details the brief facts leading to the passing of the impugned detention orders dated 4th February, 2015 by the Respondent No.2, which can be gathered from the grounds of detention, can briefly be stated thus :-

(i) That the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Ahmedabad Zonal Unit received specific information that the detenues viz. Ramdas Shivaji More (detenu in Writ Petition No.1048 of 2015) and Sagar Vishnu Suryavanshi (detenu in Writ Petition No.1050 of 2015) were travelling by Train No.12262 (Howrah-CST Doronto Express) which had departed from Howrah at 08.20 AM on 9th September, 2014 and was scheduled to arrive at Mumbai Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus Railway Station at 11.00 AM on 10th September, 2014 and both of them were carrying a total of around 20 kgs. of smuggled Foreign Marked Gold Bars (FMGB) and were seated in bogie No.A-3 on seat Nos.23 and 24 and were expected to alight at Mumbai Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus Railway Station. On the basis of the said specific information, combined operation was undertaken by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Ahmedabad Zonal Unit along with the officers of Mumbai Zonal Unit. That in pursuance of the specific information received by the officers of the DRI, the Intelligence Officers boarded the said train at Igatpuri Railway Station in the said compartment in which detenues Ramdas More and Sagar Suryavanshi were travelling. The said officers identified both of the said detenues.

(ii) That when the said train crossed Shahad Railway Station and had a brief halt at the signal, the detenues Ramdas More and Sagar Suryavanshi suddenly got down at the said signal. The officers of the DRI followed and intercepted the said two detenues at Shahad Railway Station and questioned about possession of gold bars. The detenues though initially denied any possession, subsequently admitted the possession of smuggled gold bars. As the place was not conducive for search and for further proceedings, t