The detaining authority is obligated to supply copies of all documents relied upon or referred to in the grounds of detention to the detenu, and the detenu has the right to decide whether a document is relevant to their defense.

( 1 ) BY our order passed on 27th September, 1983, we had quashed the impugned detention order dated 22nd February, 1983. While making the Rule absolute we had directed that the petitioner. Vinod Kumar Arora be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be detained under any other valid order passed by a Court or an authority. We now proceed to set out the reasons for quashing the detention order.

( 2 ) MR. R. L. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the rule issued in this writ of habeas corpus, urged mainly one point. He submitted that the petitioner was not supplied copies of relevant documents on which reliance was placed by the Administrator in the grounds of detention. The plea is that as the petitioner was prevented from making an effective representation against the detention order, the protection of fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 (5) of the Constitution was denied to him.

( 3 ) TO appreciate the submission it is necessary to notice a few facts.

( 4 ) THE detention order was passed on 22nd February, 1983, by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by section 3 (1) read with section 2 (f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) with a view to preventing the petitioner from abetting the smuggling of goods, viz. , Hashish out of India. The order of detention was served on the petitioner on 23rd July, 1983, and the grounds of detention were served on him ia the Central Jail, Tihar. New Delhi, on 25th July, 1983, where he was lodged.

( 5 ) IN paragraphs (i) and (ii) of the grounds of detention, a number of documents have been noticed by the detaining authority. According to Mr. Mehta those documents have been relied upon by the authority. Mr. R. M. Bagai, learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that those documents are not the basis of the detention order; there is merely a passing or a casual reference in the grounds to those documents. It is useful to quote the said paragraphs:

" (I) that in pursuance of a specific information that two persons namely Mr. Klaus Peter Lorenz a German National and Mr. Warner Zubler, a Swiss National, - would be carrying hashish with them from Delhi to Geneva by PANAM Flight 001 on 13-4-1982 which they would change at Frankfurt for a Lufthansa flight, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence alongwith Custom authorities of Delhi airport kept surveillance over the international departure area of Delhi Airport, Palam from the evening of 12-4-82 which resulted in the interception of a blue VIP suitcase with PANAM Tag No. 216245 showing the itinerary Delhi-Frankfurt-Geneva, from the conveyor belt in the Customs enclosure. As no claimant for the said suitcase came forward even after the passengers had boarded the aircraft, a thorough check of the itineraries of all the passengers on board the said PANAM 001 flight from Delhi revealed that only the aforesaid Lorenz and Zubler were to follow the route Delhi-Frankfurt-Geneva, i. e. , the itinerary indicated on the said blue VIP suitcase. These persons were, therefore, offloaded from the aircraft and brought back to the Customs Examination Hail an. . were questioned about the ownership of the said suitcase. Personal search of Mr. Warner Zubler resulted in the recovery of one VIP Key-purse containing two keys with which he opened the suitcase in question on being asked to do so by the officers The examination of the suitcase resuited in the recovery of hashish weighing 20 kg. packed in eight polythene bags which were wrapped with a striped cloth, which was seized together with the hashish. under Section 110 of the Customs Act 1962 in the reasonable belief that the same were liable to confication under provisions of the Act ibid. The Chemical Examiner s report has since confirmed the goods under seizin s as hemp covered under the Dangerous Dru