N Criminal Appeal No  54 of 1988 
From the Judgment and order dated 9101987 of the Delhi High Court in Crl
WP No 262 of 1987
Soli J Sorabjee Hukam Chand Mrs Nisha Bachi and Vijay K Verma for the Appellant
B Datta Additional Solicitor General P Parmeswaran Ashok K Srivastava A Subha Rao and CV Subba Rao for the Respondents
803 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY J
Special leave granted
Arguments heard
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th October 1987 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Writ Petition No 262 of 1987 discharging the rule and rejecting the writ petition
The appellant was arrested and detained on 21st March 1987 from his residence at Dahiwali Gali Karola Market Naya Laxman Mandir Bharatpur by an order of detention made under Section 31 of with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign currency and also with a view to prevent him from engaging and keeping smuggled gold
The appellant was served with the grounds of detention by the Detaining Authority Shri Tarun Roy Joint Secretary to the Government of India
It had been stated therein that the appellant may make any representation to the Advisory Board against his detention
In the grounds of detention it was inter alia stated that on the basis of the secret information received in the office of the Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate Agra the appellant had been indulging in illegal sale and purchase of foreign currency and also in the sale and purchase of gold of foreign origin on a large scale and that search of the following premises connected with the appellant was carried out on 10th December 1986 under Section 37 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 i Premises situated in Purana Laxman Mandir opposite Dr Ram Kumar Bharatpur
ii Premises situated in Daniwali Gali Karola Market Naya Laxman Mandir Bharatpur and iiiBusiness premises of Ms Madanlal Mohanlal and Baldev Singh Karola Laxman Mandir Crossing Near Bata Shop Bharatpur
On 6th April 1987 the appellant made two representations one to the Detaining Authority 2nd respondent and another to the Central Government the Ist respondent
In the representation to the Detain 804 ing Authority the appellant stated that he had no concern whatsoever as regards the residential premises situated at Purana Laxman Mandir opp
Dr Ram Kumar Bharatpur where the search was conducted and on such search US  and primary gold were recovered as the said premises does not belong to him but belongs to his sister in law
The appellant s residential premises is situated in Dahiwali Gali Karola Market Naya Laxman Mandir Bharatpur
It had also been stated therein that the relevant documents on the basis of which the detaining authority came to the subjective satisfaction were not supplied to him and unless the said documents are given to him it will not be possible for him to make any effective representation against the grounds of detention
In the second representation to the Secretary Government of India dated 6th April 1987 also the appellant while reiterating the same facts stated that even the house from where the alleged recovery of foreign currency and gold was made is not his residential premises but is the residence of his sister in law
The appellant also stated that he was innocent and he should be released forthwith by revoking the order of detention
The appellant also stated that the Detaining Authority supplied him the relevant documents and also the information asked for in his letter dated 6th April 1987 only on 24th April 1987
The appellant also made a representation before the Advisory Board on 27th April 1987
The appellant was produced before the Advisory Board on 29th April 1987 and the Advisory Board heard the appellant in respect of his representation
The appellant received a communication dated 7th May 1987 from the respondent No 1 stating therein that his detention had been confirmed with effect from 21st March 1987 for a period of one year
The appellant thereafter challenged the order of detention by a writ petition and also prayed for quashing of the said order of detention on the ground inter alia that the documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority in coming to his subjective satisfaction for making the order of detention in question which were required to be supplied to him along with the grounds of detention were not supplied to him
The grounds of detention were supplied to him on 21st March 1987 whereas the vital documents were supplied to him as late as on 24th April 1987 in infringement of the provisions of Section 33 of the to be hereinafter called as the said Act
This vitiated the entire detention order in as much as the appellant could not make an effective representation against his order of detention in accordance 805 with the mandatory provisions of Article 22S of the Constitution of India
The order of detention was also challenged on the ground that the order of confirmation of detention did not give any indication as to why the Government had specified or determined the maximum period of detention of one year
The detention order is therefore illegal
It had also been stated in the writ petition that there had been inordinate delay in considering the representation sent on 6th April 1987 through the Superintendent of Jail to the Detaining Authority and the Central Government
The said representation was disposed of by the Central Government on 29th April 1987 and as such there was delay of 23 days which had not been explained
This unusual delay in the disposal of the detenu s representation renders the order of detention bad
A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent Nos 1 and 2 affirmed by one Shri SK Chaudhary Under Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue
In para 4 of the said affidavit it was stated that it is also pertinent to submit that at the time of search several personal documents of the petitioner like copy of driving licence his and his wife s bank passbooks including a HUF passbook account books were seized from the said premises
 It was also stated in para 7 of the said affidavit that the information sought in the representation of 6th April 1987 received in the office of the Detaining Authority on 15th April 1987 was totally irrelevant for the purpose of making any representation
In para 10 of the said affidavit it had been stated that the detenu was supplied with more documents numbering 150 pages on 24th April 1987 in pursuance of his representation dated 6th April 1987 although the same were not relied upon in forming the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority
The Detaining Authority Shri Tarun Roy Joint Secretary to the Government of India Department of Revenue Ministry of Finance New Delhi in paras 3 and 4 of his affidavit stated as under 3 
That I was aware that no separate statement had been recorded by the Custom authorities and as such there was no question of suppressing the same
The result of the seizure was also placed before me as given in the panchanama which were placed before me
That although all the documents seized from the premises of the petitioner were before me but I had not relied on all of those documents in forming my subjective satisfaction
I have relied only on those documents which 806 are mentioned to be relied in the list of documents annexed with the grounds of detention
 The learned Judge of the Delhi High Court while dismissing the writ petition observed that in view of the affidavit filed by the Detaining Authority the respondent No 2 that all the documents seized though placed before him he did not rely on all of them in forming his subjective satisfaction in making the order of detention and as such the non supply of those documents to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention cannot be said to amount to infringement of the provisions of Article 225 of the Constitution rendering the order of detention illegal and bad
Mr Soli J Sorabji learned counsel appearing on behalf of the detenu has submitted with much vehemence that non supply of the vital documents which were considered by the Detaining Authority in forming his subjective satisfaction violates the provisions of Article 225 of the Constitution as the appellant was prevented from making effective representation to the grounds of detention
It has been submitted by the learned counsel that those documents which comprised of the 3 bank passbooks of the appellant and his wife and one driving licence of the appellant which had been seized and taken possession of by the Customs Department will clearly show that the residential address of the appellant mentioned therein is the house in Dahiwali Gali Karola Market Naya Laxman Mandir Bharatpur and not in Purana Laxman Mandir opp
Dr Ram Kumar Bharatpur which house does not belong to the appellant but to his sister in law
The foreign currency ie US  as well as the primary gold which were found out on search from the house in Purana Laxman Mandir cannot be connected with the appellant as he had specifically stated in his representation that he is not the owner of the said house
It has also been submitted in this connection that in spite of the specific objection taken by the appellant in his representation no attempt was made on behalf of the Detaining Authority to ascertain who is the owner of the said house
The non supply of the said documents had greatly handicapped the appellant in making an effective representation against the rounds of detention served on him
This submission of the learned counsel was tried to be repelled by the Additional Solicitor General by contending that in view of the affidavit filed by the Detaining Authority Shri Tarun Roy Joint Secretary to the Government of India Department of Revenue Ministry of Finance that he did not consider those documents though the same 807 were placed before him in forming his subjective satisfaction in making the order of detention and so non supply of those documents along with the grounds of detention to the appellant did not vitiate the order of detention
It was also submitted that the appellant and his relation Manoj Kumar were present at the time of the search and the appelLant subsequently fled away go to show that the house in Purana Laxman Mandir from where the foreign currency and primary gold were recovered belonged to the appellant
After considering the submission it is crystal clear that the aforesaid documents though placed before the detaining Authority for his consideration were not supplied to the appellant within 15 days from the date of the order of detention as provided under Section 33 of the said Act
It is also evident from the affidavit of Shri SK Chaudhary Under Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue New Delhi that on the request of the appellant by his representation dated 6th April 1987 the documents were supplied to him on 24th April 1987
The representation of the appellant was disposed of by the Advisory Board on 29th April 1987
In these circumstances it cannot be denied that the failure on the part of the Detaining Authority to supply the aforesaid material documents prevented the appellant from making an effective representation against the grounds of detention and as such the mandatory provisions of Article 225 have not been complied with
The order of detention in our considered opinion is therefore illegal and bad and the same is liable to be quashed
As the appeal succeeds on this ground alone we do not deem it necessary to consider the other objections raised against the order of detention
It is pertinent to refer here to the decision of this Court in Smt
Icchu Devi Choraria vs Union of India and ors
  wherein it has been held that the right to be supplied the copies of the documents statements and other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention without any undue delay flows directly as a necessary corollary from the right conferred on the detenu to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the detention because unless the former right is available the latter cannot be meaningfully exercised
It has been further held that it is necessary for the valid continuance of detention that subject to Article 226 copies of the documents statements and other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention should be furnished to the detenu along with the grounds of detention or in any event not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to he recorded in writing 808 not later than fifteen days from the date of detention
There are no exceptions or qualifications provided to this rule and if this requirement of Article 22S read with Section 33 of COFEPOSA Act is not satisfied the continued detention of the detenu would be illegal and void
Similar observations have been made in the case of Kamla Kanahiyalal Khushalani vs State of Maharashtra and Another  For the reasons aforesaid we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and quash the order of detention
We direct the Government to release the appellant from jail forthwith
There will be no order as to costs
NVK Appeal allowed


Summary:
 The first respondent an employee of the appellant Corporation who was to retire from his service on 1689 on completion of 58 years of age as per the date of birth recorded in the register maintained by the employer the appellant Corporation filed a writ petition in the High Court claiming that his date of birth should be altered to 20th October 1938 relying on a certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer
The petition was contested by the appellant Corporation
A Single Judge of the High Court held that it was not possible to accept the case of the first respondent that he was born in the year 1938 and that the date of birth as recorded in the register of the appellant Corporation should not be interfered with
However taking into consideration the problems of the respondent domestic or otherwise he made an order to the effect that the first respondent may be given three more years service after his due date of retirement by reappointing him for that period as a special case
Allowing the appeal  HELD The Single Judge of the High Court having found that the date of birth of the first respondent as recorded in the register of the appellant Corporation should not be interfered with committed a serious error in making an order directing the appellant Corporation as a special case to reappoint the first respondent for a period of three more years after his due date of retirement on 1689 on the ground that he had his problems domestic or otherwise
There was hardly any justification for passing such an order under Article 226 of the Constitution
864B C 863