K. M. NATARAJAN, J.

These two writ petitions arise out of one and the same transactions, and the questions involved in the petition are the same. Hence, by consent of both the parties, they were disposed of by a common order.

2. W.P. No. 76 of 1990 is filed by one Karuppayee wife of the detenu M. Munisamy son of Muthu Maniar, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus quashing the order of detention dated 12-12-1989 passed against the said M. Munisami and set the said M. Munisami at liberty.

3. W.P. No. 324 of 1990 is filed by one Tamil Chelvi, wife of K. Munisami, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, quashing the order dated 12-12-1989 passed against her husband and set him at liberty.

4. Both the impugned orders were passed by the Additional Secretary to Government, Public (SC) Department, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 3(1)(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974, hereinafter referred to as the Act, with a view to preventing the detenus from smuggling goods.

5. The short facts which led to the p