( 1 ) THE petitioners herein who came to be preventively detained pursuant to the various orders of detention under S. 3 (2) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (For short-COFEPOSA) as briefly indicated in the table appended below and on the basis of which only some proceedings against them by way of various notices under S. 6 of Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Properties) Act, 1976 (for short-SAFEMA) came to be initiated, have by way of group of these 7 writ petitions challenged the same under Articles 14, 19, 21, 22 and 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia praying for two reliefs by way of issuance of the writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside (i) the order of detention passed under COFEPOSA; and (ii) the impugned notices issued against them.

( 2 ) THE relevant particulars regarding each of the petitions having a bearing on the decision of the case are set out and indexed in a chart tabulated as under:

( 3 ) MR. S. H. Sanjanwala, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners while challenging the legality and validity of impugned notices under section 6 of the SAFEMA, has contended that since the said proceedings were essentially based upon original detention orders under Section 3 (2) of the COFEPOSA against each of the petitioners, unless they are proved to be legal and valid, no proceedings under section 6 of the SAFEMA can ever be initiated. Accordingly, Mr. Sanjanwala further submitted that the original orders of detention under COFEPOSA were liable to be quashed and set aside on the following three grounds. (i) That the documents referred to and relied upon in the grounds of detention were not supplied to the petitioners along with the grounds of detention. This according to Mr. Sanjanwala was fatal to the orders of detention. In support of this contention, the reliance was placed on a Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India v. Haji Mastan, reported in AIR 1984, SC, 681 (1984 Cri LJ 610), wherein in paras 10 and 11, it has been held as under: para-10. A reading of S. 6 (1) of SAFEMA would show that action under sections 6 and 7 can be taken against only persons to whom that Act applies. Section-2 (1) of that Act specifies the persons to whom the Act applies. Sub-s. (2) of S. 2 says that the Act applies to every person in respect of whom an order for detention has been made under COFEPOSA provided that such order of detention has not been set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. In the present case action has been taken against the respondent under Ss. 6 (1) and 7 read only with S. 2 (2) of the Act. Therefore, a valid order of detention under COFEPOSA is a condition precedent to proceedings being taken under Ss. 6 and 7 of SAFEMA. If the impugned order of detention dated 19-12- 1974 is set aside for any reason the proceedings taken under Ss. 6 and 7 of SAFEMA cannot stand. Therefore, we have to consider whether the impugned order of detention dated 19-12-1974 under COFEPOSA is void and has to be quashed. Para-11. It is seen from para 17 of the judgment of Kotwal J that it was not disputed before the learned Judges of the High Court no copy of any of the documents was ever supplied to the respondent. That fact was admitted in un- mistakable terms not only in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents before the High Court but also in the course of the arguments of their learned counsel. Kotwal J. has held that the documents referred to in the grounds and relied upon for the purpose of the respondents detention are such that without copies thereof being supplied to the respondent he could not have been in a position to make any effective representation against his detention. There was no dispute before the learned Judges of the High Court that the documents referred to in the grounds of detention and relied upon for the purpose of detention are material documents and that the resp