An order of detention under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, is valid even if one of the grounds is found to be invalid, as the other ground is sufficient to support the order.

N. C. Mukherji, J. :- This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ and/or order, or orders, and/or directions in the nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the matter of an order bearing No. F. No. 673/20/80-Cus. VIII passed by Shri B.B. Gujral, Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue). New Delhi on 28th October, 1980 in purported exercise of powers conferred by S.3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The said order was passed on the basis of which the petitioner Shri Satyanarayan Kothari has been detained in Presidency Jail, Calcutta. It is the case of the petitioner that he carries on bona fide business in Textiles and Hosiery goods in Barabazar at Calcutta. That on 9th Nov., 1980 some officers of the Custom came to his house and enquired of him. The petitioner at that time was asleep and could not attend the officers who came there. The house of the petitioner was surrounded and kept on guard throughout the night. On the next morning the petitioner was arrested and taken to the Custom House. At the Custom House, the petitioner was served with a copy of the order of detention and also with a copy of the grounds on which the petitioner has been detained. It appears from the order of detention that the petitioner has been detained with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods. It has been stated in the application that the grounds have been expressed in a language and in a manner which is absolutely ununderstandable to a person of ordinary prudence. The materials as expressed in the grounds clearly show that there has not been any valid satisfaction. A reading of the document mentioned as grounds clearly indicate that materials which are not germane to smuggling of goods have been stated in detail. It is difficult to find out which fact in the grounds really amounts to smuggling. Since a number of facts and incidents have been put together in the document enumerated as grounds the satisfaction becomes totally invalid as based on various extraneous materials. The first paragraph refers to an intelligence report. It is stated that the intelligence report is vague, indefinite and does not amount to smuggling. The paras, 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) are enumeration as to what had happened when the intelligence report earlier mentioned had been worked out. The facts stated therein do not amount to smuggling and as such those facts constituting the grounds are irrelevant. In paragraph 2(b) of the grounds all that had happened as a result of search at the Airport of the petitioner and his wife on 8th September, 1980 have been stated. The facts stated then do not amount to smuggling at all. Seizure on the basis of a reasonable belief may or may not ultimately lead to confiscation but that is no index of smuggling. The statements in paragraph 2(c) do not amount smuggling. Zirconium stones are not 4 amond and their importation is not necessarily smuggling. It is of no consequence that those may be liable to confiscation is further stated that the facts alleged paragraph 2 and its sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) related to one occurrence of 8 September, 1980. In that incident the Custom Officer on a reasonable belief that the stones were liable to be confiscated had seized them. The ground is vague and has no proximate connection with the purpose of detention. The allegations are irrelevant an those do not come within the mischief and scope of Section 3 of the Act. In Ground No. 3 the steps that had been taken in connection with the seizure have been mentioned. The allegations have no bearing on smuggling. The statements of facts in para graph 4 only show that the petitioner had been to different parts of the world. It does not disclose smuggling or anything to do with smuggling. Even then the facts stated there in have been relied for the purpose of detaining the petitioner. Such reliance, acc