( 1 ) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu Aswini Kumar More has challenged the order of detention of her husband, the detenu, passed by the Joint Secretary ot the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, being No. F. No. 673/9/99 - CUS VIII dated New Delhi the 27th January 1999 in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activites Act, 1974 as amended, hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA Act, with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods in future. The order of detention and the grounds on which the said order of detention was passed bearing the same date are contained in Annexure "a" to the writ petition.

( 2 ) IT has been alleged inter alia in the grounds of detention that the documents seized from the residence and offices of the detenu and from other places and the statements of several persons recorded during enquiry of some secret information received by the detaining authority, revealed total evasion of duty by illegal importation and illegal duty-free clearance of copper cathode and RBD of palmolein including misdeclaration of value amounting to more than Rs. 4. 5 crores (approx) and the imports were done in the names of fictitious firms under bogus advance licenses, and benami accounts were opened in various Banks for realising the domestic sale-proceeds of the goods illegally imported and sending remittances abroad against those imports by abusing the scheme of import through DEEC scheme and misdeclaration of value of imported goods by deliberate and conscious involvement of the detenu by various acts and ommissions contained in detail in the grounds of detention.

( 3 ) THE detenu made three separate representations, one dated 2. 3. 99 addressed to the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, the second dated 5. 3. 99 addressed to the Secretary to the Government of India and the third dated 8. 3. 99 addressed to the Hon'ble Chairman, COFEPOSA Advisory Board as per paragraph 52 contained in the grounds of detention. The said three representations are annexed as annexures "b", "c" and "d" to the writ petition. Out of those three representations it is stated in the writ petition that the first and the second were considered and rejected by the authorities with unexplained delay but the detenu did not receive any communication regarding his third representation, annexure "d" to the writ petition. However the learned counsel for the Respondent showed the order of rejection of the third representation also by the Hon'ble Chairman, COFEPOSA Advisory Board but no affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent in support thereof.

( 4 ) MR. Pradip Kumar Ghosh, learned senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, does not challenge the merits of the order and grounds of detention although the allegations contained in the grounds of detention against the detenu have been denied. Mr. Ghosh challenges the order of detention mainly for violation of constititutional safeguards under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and the statutory safeguards under section 3 (3) of the COFEPOSA available to the detenu, for which, he contends, the order of detention, is liable to be set aside.

( 5 ) MR. Ghosh's challenge to the order of detention may be considered under the following five heads:i) Non-supply of documents. ii) Non-supply of documents pari passu with the grounds of detention. iii) Supply of documents in the language not known to the detenu. iv) Supply of illegible documents. v) Delay in consideration of the representations. vi) Delay in passing the order of detention.

( 6 ) EMPHASING the need for supply of document in this particular case, it is submitted that the detenu in this case being a resident of Calcutta and the allegations contained in the grounds mainly being related to Calcutta,