( 1 ) THE detention order under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as COFEPOSA Act) was passed on 6th May, 1994. The said detention order was served upon the petitioner on 12th June, 1994 along with grounds of detention.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Trilok Kumar urged various grounds in the writ petition such as inordinate delay in passing and in execution of the detention order, relevant material neither placed nor considered by the Detaining Authority thereby vitiating the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, non-supply of all relied upon documents parri-pasu grounds of detention amounting to infraction of Section 3 (3) of the COFEPOSA Act and Aritcle 22 (5) of the Constitution of India, all relied upon documents not supplied in the language known to the petitioner, supply of unintelligible relied upon documents and placing of reliance on irrelevant documents thereby showing non-application of mind.

( 3 ) MS. Barkha Babbar, leamed Counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner and has stated that all the relied upon documents have been supplied to the petitioner some unintelligible documents have also been supplied but if the documents in original were not unintelligible, the same could not be made legible. She has argued that there is no inordinate delay in execution of the detention order as investigation took time.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner also urged additional grounds that there was inordinate delay in consideration of the representations dated 20. 6. 94 and 29. 7. 94 by the Central Government and by the Detaining Authority. As a matter of fact, he has argued that the representation dated 20. 6. 94 does not appear to have been considered by the Detaining Authority, i. e. the Joint Secretary, COFEPOSA till date. It has also been argued that there was no independent consideration by the Central Government of petitioner s representations addressed to the Advisory Board dated 20. 6. 94 and 29. 7. 94 as their consideration appears to have been influenced by the opinion of the Advisory Board as these appear to have been considered and disposed of simultaneously with the passing of order of confirmation.

( 5 ) FIRST of all I would like,to deal with the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner that reliance has been placed upon irrelevant documents which shows non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority. The ground of attack of the petitioner is that a large number of irrelevant documents have been relied upon for the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority to detain him. A number of statements and Panchnamas relied upon by the Detaining Authority are irrelevant which reflect non-application of mind in the. matter of segregating relevant from the irrelevant materials, thereby placing reliance on the irrelevant materials vitiating the subjective satisfaction to detain the petitioner amounting to frustrate the right of the petitioner to make an expeditious, effective and purposeful representation as envisaged under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. The case of the petitioner is that he has been drowned under pelothera of documents regardless to their relevancy. He has argued that the material relied upon must be relevant, pertaining to and proximate to the petitioner. List of such alleged irrelevant documents are Annexures o and o- to the petition. At page 115 annexure o specifically pleads that a number of irrelevant grounds, statements and documents have been relied upon by the Detaining Authority for subjective satisfaction by the Detaining Authority by taking into consideration the irrelevant documents shows that there was non-application of mind by the Detaining Autho- rity. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is two folds, that by taking into co