Preventive detention orders must strictly comply with procedural safeguards, including timely communication of grounds and consideration of representations; non-compliance renders detention invalid.

1. These are eight writ petitions for quashing the orders of detention of eight detenus under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and for a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenus before the Court and to set them free. The facts averred and the grounds raised in them are substantially the same. I shall therefore consider first the common features in the Writ Petition No. 92/80 which is the first of these Writ Petitions and thereafter the additional contentions raised in the remaining petitions.

2. Shortly stated the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 92/80 is as under : -
On 29th March, 1980 the Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu ("The Administrator" for brevity's sake) after being satisfied that with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling goods and abetting the smuggling of goods and engaging in transporting smuggled goods, it was necessary to place Vasant Shantaram Bagkar (hereinafter referred to as "the detenu") under preventive detention, directed, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under S.3 (1) of the Act, that he be detained at Central Jail, Aguada. Accordingly the detenu was arrested on 30-3-1980 and lodged in the said jail. The grounds of detention were communicated to the detenu on 5-4-1980. On April 19, 1980 the detenu made a representation to the Administrator against the detention order. By letter dated June 30. 1980 the detenu was informed, that his representation was rejected. By the letter dated July 28, 1980, the detenu was informed that the Advisory Board constituted under the Act was of the opinion that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu and that therefore the Administrator who was the detaining authority confirmed the detenu's detention and further directed that the detenu be detained for a period of four months from the date of detention. By Order dated July 29, 1980, the Administrator modified the Order dated July 28, 1980 and directed that the detenu be detained for a period of eight months from the date of detention. The petitioner challenges the various orders on the grounds mentioned in the petition. I shall refer to those grounds as I take them up for my consideration.

3. The case of the respondents is that the orders challenged in this petition are legal and that therefore the petition should be dismissed.

4. The first two grounds were not pressed by the petitioner.

5. Ground III is that the Administrator passed the detention order mechanically and without addressing himself to the question whether the detenu could not have been adequately dealt with under the ordinary law of the land for the alleged offence.

6. In the affidavit - in - reply the respondents have stated that the Administrator had addressed himself to the question as to whether the detenu could not have been adequately dealt with under the ordinary law of the land and that in the nature and circumstances of the case he had come to conclusion that preventive detention was called for.

7. The petitioner has not placed before me material on which it can be said that the Administrator had acted mechanically. In the present case the grounds for detention have been given with sufficient elaboration. They are copious and amply justify an order of detention. In view of these facts it is not possible for me to infer that the Administrator did not apply his mind to the relevant consideration. In fact, after perusing the records, I am in a position to say that the fact of the possibility of a criminal prosecution was clearly considered by the Administrator. In ' Kanchanlal Maneklal Chokshi v. State of Gujarat ', AIR 1979 SC 1945 : 1979 CriLJ 1306 the Court held that the possibility of launching a criminal prosecution was not an absolute bar to the order of preventive detention and that it was not correct to say that if such possibility was not present in the mind of the detaining aut