( 1 ) BY this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus and for setting aside the Preventive Petition Order dated 17-6-1989 (served on the petitioner on 31-5-1989) passed by respondent No. 2 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 (1) (iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange And Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, the Act ).

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 herein is the sponsering authority, while respondent No. 4 is the in charge of Central Jail, Indore.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT claimed having prior information and a constant vigil being kept near Rajani building near Mahatma Gandhi Road, Indore, where, according to the information, a sizable quantity of foreign-mark gold was likely to be carried by the petitioner for further delivery, and a Maruti Car bearing Registration No. CIF-1529, carrying foreign-mark gold biscuits, was intercepted in New Palasia, Indore. The petitioner was found to be occupying the same.

( 4 ) THE petitioner was arrested by an Inspector of Central Excise on 3-4-1989, around 11. 30 hrs. and was ordered to be released on bail by the Sessions Judge, vide order dated 6-4-1989. This release order was initially made operative till 10-4-1989 and again when the petitioner's bail petition was fixed for final hearing, on 10-4-1989, the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail on the same terms and conditions as were imposed by order dated 6-4-1989. After his release on bail, the Preventive Detention Order, filed as Annexure-1 by the petitioner, came to be passed. It is this order, which is under challenge in this petition. ( 5 ) THERE is a material difference in the case as put-forth by the petitioner and the respondents on the point as to the circumstances leading to the petitioner's interception and what subsequently transpired after the petitioner's interception. Without going into the controversial facts the fact remains that the petitioner was arrested for carrying 52 foreign-mark gold biscuits, weighing 10 tolas each.

( 6 ) I propose to defer the present the array of arguments advanced by Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the utmost intensity of subjective passion, with full consciousness of the iron frame of law, and pick those points which do not admit of much elaboration, without making the concept and abstractions more important, than what is actual and particular.

( 7 ) THE first point in this category is the petitioner's knowledge of English language in which admittedly the grounds of detention whatever they be, were actually supplied, to the detenu, whose grievance is that for want of knowledge of the English language, he was deprived of an opportunity of making an effective representation against his preventive detention. This ground has been specifically raised in paragraph 6 (z-3) and (z-4) of the petition. It reads as follows :"the detention order has observed in para 11 "a copy of these grounds and copies of Panchanama, statements and documents in Hindi language known to you are enclosed. " The order of detention, the grounds of detention and copies of various documents had not been given to the petitioner in Hindi. Despite the fact that petitioner, through his letter dated 18-4-1989 has brought it to the notice of excise authorities that Shri Kasbekar, Shri Davshe, Shri Parmanand Sisodia and Shri Shailendra Dwivedi, Advocate, Indore, are material witnesses, but they have not been examined by the sponsoring authority or any Central Excise Officer under him. No copies of statements had been supplied to detaining authority. Hence this vital and relevant material has not been placed before detaining authority for his consideration. The petitioner attracted the attention of the detaining authority through his letter dated 10-6-1989, copy whereof is annexed hereto and marked Annexure- (18), that as per detention order, the petitioner was to be supplied copies of documents