Preventive detention orders must adhere to statutory provisions; courts do not assess the adequacy of evidence nor grant legal representation rights before advisory boards.

The petitioner’s husband was detained by an order dated November 20, 1984 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 on the ground, that contraband articles alleged to be worth more than 1/2 crore of rupees had been received on the sea-shore at the back of Raj Bhavan, Bombay, that access to this place was only through the Raj; Bhavan, and that he had asked an employee of the Raj Bhavan compound for the purpose of transporting the contraband articles.

The petitioner in her writ petition to this Court assailed the order of detention as also the subsequent declaration dated December 12, 1984 under section 9 of the Act. Earlier the petitioner had challenged the detention order by filing a writ petition before the High Court but the same was dismissed.

It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that:

(1) the petitioner made a representation against the detention of her husband on November 24, 1984 and it was received in the Secretariat of the Chief Minister on November 28, 1984 and that it was not disposed of till January 28, 1985 and that this delay in disposal vitiated the detention and the detenu became entitled to be set at liberty by the quashing of the order.

(2) The order of detention is liable to be set aside inasmuch as it has been made without proper application of mind. The link between the 253 alleged transaction of transporting the contraband materials and A the detenu is said to have been established by a statement made by an employee of Raj Bhavan to the effect that the Detenu had asked him to allow the truck to enter into the Raj Bhavan premises.

(3) The grounds of detention disclose that the detaining authority had relied upon the contact between the detenu and another person, and the source of information for ascertaining the existence of this relationship was as intelligence report, and that the same had not been furnished to the detenu.

(4) The detenu had been prejudiced in the hearing by the Advisory Board as his request for representation by counsel or by a non-lawyer friend had not been entertained by the Board.

Dismissing the writ petition,

HELD: l. The petitioner had made a representation and the same was received in the office of the Chief Minister on November 28, 1984 and orders were passed thereon on January 28, 1985. There was also another representation made on behalf of the detenu by the Khed Taluka Maratha Seva Sangh, and this representation was a detailed one and this was received in the Secretariat on November 29, 1984 and finally disposed of on December 12, 1984. The High Court looked into the two representations one made by the Sangh and the other by the petitioner and having regard to the manner in which the Sangh’s representation had been disposed of, held that the representation made by the petitioner was a second one on the same score, and delay in disposing of that representation did not really prejudice the detenu’s case. The petitioner is not entitled therefore to make any submission on the score of delay in disposal of the representation. [258 B-F]

2. Satisfaction under the law is subjective and it is not for the court to test the adequacy of the material on which satisfaction is reached. It was up to the detaining authority in the instant case, to accept the statement made by the employee of Raj Bhavan about the link between the detenu and the receipt of the contraband articles and the bundle of facts relating thereto. [259 F]

3. In the instant case, no privilege against disclosure of source as well as contents of the information was claimed. Adequate material had been disclosed and no prejudice appears to have been caused for want of further disclosure of the intelligence report. The exact information received from the intelligence so