THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Ibrahim, Murugan, Abu Gani and Kareem Sadhik Basha detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, for short, “COFEPOSA Act” are the beneficiaries of these writ petitions filed seeking issuance of writs, directions or orders in the nature of habeas corpus on the ground that the orders for their detention and their continued detention in terms of those orders are in violation of Article 22(5) of the constitution and the different provisions of COFEPOSA Act. The detention orders are also sought to be quashed.

2. Adv. S. Palanikumar appearing on behalf of the petitioners in these cases, Adv. Govindu P. Renuka, the Central Government Counsel appearing for Union of India which is the second respondent and Adv. P.K. Babu, the Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala and the Superintendent of the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, who are respondents 1 and 3 in these writ petitions, submitted that these matters could be heard together in view of the fact that the contentions of facts and in law are fundamentally similar in these cases and because the grounds of detention are based on the same sequence of alleged transactions, treated as the foundation for the detention orders. Hence, we proceed accordingly.

3. In support of the writ petitions, the arguments were as to non-application of mind while passing the detention order and while considering the representation, delay in passing the detention and also in considering the representation; documents relied on and asked for were not furnished and that the show cause notice and reply were neither placed before the Advisory Board nor considered. Reference was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the different decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik v. Union of India [1989 SCC(Cri.) 554], Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu [1999 AIR SCW 139], Yumnam Mangibabu Singh v. State of Manipur [AIR 1983 SC 300] and Adishwar Jain v. Union of India [(2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 464], the decision of the Madras High Court in Mohiadeen Sahib, P.M.S. v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2006) 1 MLJ(Crl.) 131] and the decisions of this Court in WP(Crl.) No.230 of 2008 and Lekha Nandakumar v. Government of India [2004 (2) KLT 1094].

4. Per contra, learned Central Government Counsel and the learned Government Pleader for the State Government argued that the grounds raised are unfounded and the action taken is in conformity with the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act and having regard to grounds on which the detention order has been issued and enforced and there is no reason to take it that there was no subjective satisfaction as to the existence of grounds for such detention in terms of the provisions of law. The learned Senior Government Pleader referred to the decisions of the Apex Court in N.K. Bapna v. Union of India [(1992) 3 SCC 512], Hawabi Sayed Arif Sayed Hanif v. I. Hmingliana [(1993) 1 SCC 163], Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal [(1975) 3 SCC 198], State of Tamil Nadu v. Abdullah Kadher Batcha [(2009) 1 SCC 333], Union of India v. Arvind Shergill [AIR 2000 SC 2924], Mukesh Tikaji Bora v. Union of India [(2007) 9 SCC 28], L.M.S. Ummu Saleema v. B.B. Gujaral [AIR 1981 SC 1191], Ahamed Nassar v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1999) 8 SCC 473], M.L. Jose v. Union of India [1992 Supp (2) SCC 168] and Nishi Kanta Mondal v. State of West Bengal [(1972) 2 SCC 486). The learned Central Government Counsel relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in Sitthi Zuraina Begum v. Union of India [AIR 2003 SC 323], Union of India v. Harish Kumar [AIR 2007 SC 1430], A.C. Razia v. Government of Kerala [AIR 2004 SC 2504] and H. Saha v. State of West Bengal [AIR 1974 SC 2154].

5. The orders of detention issued on 26.2.2011 were executed on 10.3.2011. The representations of the detenues were forwarded by the jail authorities and the Central and State Governmen