( 1 ) THIS is a second petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for the release of the petitioner, Yudhister Kumar, who had been detained by the order of detention passed on 22nd April, 1983. The first writ petition being Criminal Writ Petition No. of 1983, was dismissed by our order passed on 12th September, 1983.

THE Administrator of Union Territory of Delhi passed the impugned order under section 3 (1), read with section 2 (f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (herein called the Act ) on being satisfied that the detention of the petitioner was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation and augmentation of foreign exchange and preventing him from smuggling goods as also preventing him from engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods.

( 2 ) IT may be noted here that the two co-detenus of the petitioner, namely, Deepak Kumar and Dinesh Kumar had also been detained by the order of the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi passed on the same date under section 3 (1), read with section 2 (f) of the Act. The three orders of detention were practically identical and the grounds of detention were also similar. The writ petitions of the co-detenus (Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 84 and 77 of 1983) were allowed, vide our order passed on 28th November, 1983. While quashing the impugned detention orders we made the rule absolute. In those petitions after going through the record we found that the joint representation made on behalf of Yudhishster Kumar, petitioner herein, Deepak Kumar and Dinesh Kumar. for sapply of documents, some of which had been relied upon by the detaining authority, had been rejected by it, vide memorandum dated 24th June, 1983. We further found that a copy of the said memorandum was sent to each of the three detenus. On behalf of the respondents it was adnutted in those petitions that along with the letter of the 2nd June, 1983 a letter written by anadvocate,. for supply of documents on behalf of the co-detenus, a copy of the letter sent by him on behalf of all the three detenus earlier for supply of copies had been enclosed. On this aspect we observed :

"mr. Bagai, learned counsel for the respondents initially submitted that there was no request made by the petitioner for supply of documents. Later on in view of the copy of letter dated 2nd June, 1983,. written by the Advocate for the petitioner (Annexure y to the writ petition) wherein it is clearly mentioned that although a letter for supply of documents on behalf of Sarvshri Y. Kumar, Deepak Kumar and Dinesh Kumar had already been submitted so as to enable them to make a detailed, effective and meaningful representation against their detention; yet no reply had been received so far . The prayer was that copies be arranged to be sent at an early date to enable him to file representation within the meaning of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India . By a memorandum dated 24th June, 1983, addressed to Shri R. K. Khanna, the said Advocate, the request made on behalf of Y. Kumar, Deepak Kumar and Dinesh Kumar was rejected, and a copy of the said memorandum was sent to each of the three detenus (Annexure Z ). Mr. Bagai after check ing from his record informed us that in fact with the letter of 2nd June, 1983, a copy of the earlier letter seeking copies of documents bad been received by the respondents *.

( 3 ) FURTHER we found that "as noticed above, the application made for supply of documents was a common application on behalf of all the three detenus. The copies of the documents recovered, from the residenoe of the petitioners and also from Y. Kumar, which have been referred to in the grounds of detention, were also requested to be supplied".

( 4 ) IN the earlier writ petition of the present petitioner, Mr. Sibal, his learned counsel, in support o