Petition Criminal No 222 of 1989 etc
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Kapil Sibal Arvind K Nigam and Ms Kamini Jaiswal for the Petitioners
VC Mahajan Subba Rao and P Parmeshwaran for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT J
Elaborate submissions have been made by the learned Counsel for both the parties and accordingly we proceed to dispose of the case on its merit after granting special leave
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab  Haryana dismissing the writ petition filed by three detenu including one Madan Lal Anand the husband of the appellant challenging the validity of the orders of detention all dated September 30 1988 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India the detain ing authority under section 31 of the  hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act 
So far as the detenu Madan Lal Anand is concerned the order of detention was passed with a view to preventing the detenu from abetting the smuggling of goods and dealing is smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or conceal ing or keeping smuggled goods 
The order of detention along with the grounds of such detention was served on the detenu on October 18 1988 and a declaration under section 9 of the COFEPOSA Act was made on November 2 1988 and served on him on November 3 1988
The grounds of detention that were served on the detenu run into several pages
It is not necessary to reproduce all the grounds but we may state only the relevant allegations against the detenu as made in the grounds of detention
737 It is alleged that information was received that polyes ter filament yarn and polyester fibre imported in the name of Ms Jasmine B 37 Vasant Vihar New Delhi and Ms Expo International C 224 Defence Colony New Delhi under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate Scheme DEEC Scheme
were being disposed of in the local market without fulfilling export obligations in contravention of the provi sions of the Notification No 117CUS78 dated 961978 as amended and the conditions of Advance Import Trade Control Licences
Ms Jasmine obtained five Actual User advance li cences in the financial year 1984 85 from the Joint Chief Controller of Imports  Exports New Delhi for the import of polyester filament yarn and polyester fibre free of customs duty under the DEEC Scheme
Under this Scheme Ms Jasmine were granted the said licences subject to the condi tions inter alia that they would manufacture readymade garments resultant products out of the imported polyester filament yarn and polyester spun yarn and export the result ant products abroad within a period of six months from the date of the first clearance of the imported consignment in terms of the conditions of the advance licences and the conditions of the said Notification dated 961978
By virtue of the other advance licences excepting the fifth licence dated 91
1985 the said Ms Jasmine import ed the polyester filament yarn without payment of import duty amounting to more than Rs 3 crores
It is the case of the detaining authority that in respect of the imported yarn Ms Jasmine have not fulfilled their export obligation in respect of the polyester filament yarn got cleared by them against the above licences thereby violating the provisions of the said Notification dated 961978 and the conditions of the advance licences and consequently the provision of section 1110 of the 
In the applications made to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports  Exports New Delhi for the grant of advance licences one Naresh Chadha and Madan Lal Chadha were de clared as the Partners of Ms Jasmine and the address of their factory premises was declared as Khasra No 694205 Village Lado Sarai New Delhi which on investigation was found to cover the whole village of Lado Sarai
During the last quarter of 1985 Ms Jasmine shifted their factory premises to 374 Ram Darbar Industrial Area Phase II Chandigarh
On enquiry it came to light that Ms Jasmine did not manufacture any ready made garments in the said premises
The raw material imported by the firm 738 was never brought to either of the said two premises for the purposes of manufacture
They had no intention to manufac ture or export the goods as there was neither any machinery at the so called factory premises nor power connection
Ms Expo International also obtained five Actual User advance licences in the financial year 1984 85 from the Joint Chief Controller of Imports  Exports New Delhi for the import of polyester filament yarn and polyester fiber free of customs duty under the DEEC Scheme
They were also required to manufacture the resultant products out of the imported polyester filament yarn and polyester fiber and to export out of India resultant products within a period of six months from the date of clearance of the first consign ment of raw material in terms of the conditions of the ad vance licences and the provision of the said Notification dated 961978
Ms Expo International also imported polyester filament yarn under three advance licences without payment of customs import duty amounting to Rs4929 lakhs against the first licence dated 295
1984 and Rs117 crores against the second and third licences dated 38
1984 and 1191984 but did not clear the imported material
The other two licences were not utilised by them
In ground No 15 it has been stated that investigations conducted by the Customs and Central Excise Staff Chandi garh have revealed that both the said firms have not ful filled their export obligations so far in terms of the advance licences granted to them and also in terms of the provisions of the said Notification dated 961978 as amended issued under section 125 of the 
Inves tigations have also revealed that both the firms have sold the polyester filament yarn cleared by them without payment of duty in contravention of the provisions of the above Notification and conditions of the advance licences
It is the case of the detaining authority in the grounds of detention and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that the said firms namely Ms Jasmine and Ms Expo International are benami firms of the detenu including the detenu Madan Lal Anand
Although the said Naresh Chadha and Krishan Lal Chawla are stated to be the Partners of Ms Jasmine and the said Naresh Chadha to be the Proprietor of Ms Expo International they were ciphers and the detenu had been taking out the advance licences in the benami of the said two firms
Further the said two firms had no factory anywhere 739 and that they had no intention to comply with the conditions of the licences that is to export the resultant products out of the imported material for which the advance licences were issued
The detenu Madan Lal Anand was arrested on 2161988 under section 104 of the for his involvement in the import clearance and sale of polyester filament yarn and polyester fiber in the names of the above two firms and on his application he was released on bail
Again the Chief Judicial Magistrate Chandigarh granted bail to the detenu on 117
1988 and adjourned the case sine die
In paragraph 47 of the grounds of detention it has been stated by the detaining authority that the detenu has played a very active and major role for obtaining advance licences in the names of the said firms importing the polyester filament yarn and polyester fiber getting the same cleared from Bombay Customs and also for selling it in the local market in India in violation of the conditions of the said Notification dated 961978 and also of the advance li cences
The detenu has been abetting the smuggling of the goods and also has been dealing with smuggled goods other wise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods
The three detenu including Madan Lal Anand filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab  Haryana praying for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and challenging the validity of the order of detention on a number of grounds
The High Court by an elaborate judgment overruled all the contentions made on behalf of the detenu and upheld the order of detention and dismissed the writ petition
Hence this appeal by special leave
It has been already noticed that one of the conditions of the advance licences issued to the said firms was that the importer would manufacture ready made garments out of the imported polyester filament yarn and polyester fiber and export the resultant products abroad within a period of six months from the date of first clearance of the imported consignments in terms of the conditions of the advance licences
With reference to the said conditions in the licences it is urged by Mr Sibal learned Counsel appear ing on behalf of the appellant that there was no smuggling of goods or any abetment of the smuggling of goods as al leged in the order of detention
In support of this conten tion the learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the definition of smuggling as contained in section 2e of the COFEPOSA Act
Section 2e provides that smuggling has the same meaning as in clause 39 of section 2 of the 740 and all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly
Section 239 of the defines smuggling in relation to any goods as meaning any act or omission which will render such goods liable to confiscation under section 111 or section 113 of the 
It is not disputed that the relevant provision is clause 0 of is section 111 which provides as follows 111
The following goods brought from a place outside India shall be liable to confiscation o Any goods exempted subject to any condi tion from duty or any prohibition in respect of the import thereof under this Act or any other law for the time being in force in respect of which a condition is not observed unless the non observance of the condition was sanctioned by the proper offi cer
 In view of clause 0 of section 111 if any goods exempted from payment of duty is imported without observing the condition subject to which the exemption has been made it will be a case of smuggling within the meaning of section 2e of the COFEPOSA Act
It is strenuously urged on behalf of the appellant that as an abeyance order was passed against Ms Expo Interna tional on March 27 1985 before the expiry of six months from the date of first clearance of the goods imported by it on December 6 1984 the said firm was prevented from com plying with the condition of the advance licence namely that the ready made garments were to be manufactured out of the imported polyester filament yarn and polyester fiber and the resultant products were to be exported abroad within a period of six months from the date of the first clearance
It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that as the detenu was prevented from complying with the condition of the advance licence within six months of the first clearance by the issuance of an abeyance order by the Dy
Chief Con troller of Imports   Exports the provision of section 1110 of the was not violated for the goods could not be confiscated and accordingly there was no question of smuggling within the meaning of section 2e of the COFEPOSA Act read with section 239 of the 
It is urged that the detaining authority should have taken into consideration the above fact and should not have passed the impugned order of detention
Attractive though the contention is we regret we are unable to 741 accept the same
It is true that before the expiry of six months from the date of the first clearance of the imported goods an abeyance order was passed against Ms Expo Inter national
The question is whether by such abeyance order the said firm or the detenu was prevented from manufacturing the ready made garments and exporting the same within six months from the date of
the first clearance
In the grounds of detention it has been clearly stated with all relevant particulars that the said two firms had really no existence and they did not have any factory whatsoever or any manufac turing device for the purpose of manufacturing ready made garments
It is apparent from the grounds of detention and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that with a view to procuring the licences for the purpose of importation of the goods without payment of any duty and for selling the same in the market the said firms were created andor set up by the detenu including the detenu Madan Lal Anand
In these circumstances no exception can be taken to the passing of the abeyance order against Ms Expo International and as it was more than certain that the imported goods would not and could not be utilised in ac cordance with the condition of the advance licence the provision of section 1110 of the was violated on the very importation of the goods
There is therefore no substance in the contention made on behalf of the appel lant that there was no smuggling in this case and as such the order of detention was not at all justified
The conten tion is rejected
Next it is urged on behalf of the detenu that certain documents orders relating to the firm Ms Expo Interna tional which could influence the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in favour of the detenu were not placed before him at the time he passed the order of deten tion
The said documentsorders are as follows 1 Abeyance Order No 12084 85II dated the 27th March 1985 issued by the Dy Chief Controller of Imports  Exports to Ms Expo International under clause 8D of the Imports Control Order 1955 as amended placing the firm under abeyance for a period of six months wef
the date of the issue of the order Annexure E to Cr
Writ 54588  2 Order dated the 29th March 1985 issued by the office of the Chief Controller of Imports  Exports New Delhi to Ms Expo Interna tional suspending the operation of the said five advance import licences granted to them Annexure G to Cr
Writ 54588
742 3 Show cause notice dated the 26th December 1985 issued by the office of the Chief Con troller of Imports  Exports to Ms Expo International under section 4 L for action under section 4 I of the Imports and Exports Control Act 1947 as amended and under clause 8 of the Imports Control Order 1985 as amended Annexure II to Cr
Writ 54588
4 Show cause notice dated the 27th March 1985 issued by the office of the Chief Con troller of Imports  Exports to Ms Expo International under clause 10 for action under clause 91a  d of the IMPORTS Control Order 1955 as amended as to why the five import licences should not be cancelled and rendered ineffective Annexure F to Cr
Writ 54588
Even assuming that the above documentsorders were not placed before the detaining authority we fail to understand how the same could have influenced the subjective satisfac tion of the detaining authority in favour of the detenu
As has been discussed above the abeyance order was passed on the detenu when the authorities concerned found that the above two firms had no factories and therefore there was no question of their manufacturing ready made garments from the imported material and exporting them within a period of six months from the date of first clearance in accordance with the conditions under the advance licences
The show cause notices issued to the said firm Ms Expo Interna tional also would reveal that the detenu had failed to comply with the condition of the licences and indeed there was no chance of the conditions being complied with inasmuch as there was no manufacturing devices of the said firms
We are of the view that even if the documentsorders had not been placed before the detaining authority that could not in the least affect the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority
At this stage we may state a few more facts
Ms Expo International filed a civil revision petition being CR No 306 of 1986 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the Punjab  Haryana High Court through its alleged Proprietor Naresh Chadha
In this petition Ms Expo International prayed for the quashing of the show cause notices dated December 26 1985 referred to above
Another civil revision petition being CR No 3694 of 1985 was filed by Ms Jasmine through its alleged Partner Krishan Lal Chawla inter alia praying for release of certain documents to the said firm so as to 743 enable it to have its goods released from the Bombay Port
It is significant to notice that in CR No 306 of 1986 copies of all the said show cause notices dated December 26 1985 and a copy of the said abeyance order dated December 27 1985 were annexed
Further in CR No 3694 of 1985 three miscellaneous applications were filed namely CM Applications Nos 3199 3498 and 3702 of 1988
These appli cations have been mentioned in paragraphs 41 42 and 43 of the grounds of detention
Again in paragraph 28 of the grounds of detention the said CR No 306 of 1986 has been referred to as follows As per Civil Revision No 306 of 1986 filed in the Punjab  Haryana High Court at Chandi garh the factory premises were shifted some where in Mohali but specific address of the factory was not declared either to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports  Exports New Delhi or to any other department
 It is apparent from the facts stated above that the detaining authority had before him the petitions numbered as CR No 306 of 1986 and CR No 3694 of 1985 for he had referred to these civil revision petitions in the paragraphs mentioned above
The grievance of the detenu that the said abeyance order and the show cause notices were not placed before the detaining authority has no factual foundation whatsoever inasmuch as the copies of the same were annexed to the petition in CR No 3694 of 1985
Another complaint has been made by the detenu that while the detaining authority had referred to the said CR No 306 of 1986 and CR No 3694 of 1985 he should have for warded copies of the said civil revision petitions to the detenu so that he could make an effective representation against the order of detention
So far as CR No 306 of 1986 is concerned it has been already noticed in what context the same was referred to in paragraph 28 of the grounds of detention
In CR No 3694 of 1985 three civil miscellaneous applications were filed and the detaining authority had forwarded to the detenu copies of all the said three civil miscellaneous applications
But he did not forward to the detenu a copy of the civil revision petition
The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed much reliance on a decision of the Delhi High Court in Kirpal Mohan Virmani vs Tarum Roy and others In that case the Delhi High Court has taken the view that the copies of important documents and circumstances which have a material bearing or could have 744 influenced the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority should be supplied to the detenu
It has been observed that if such documents are not supplied to the detenu the detaining authority will then base his subjec tive satisfaction to detain a person without the help of the material documents even though to some extent or to a large extent the same go in favour of that person and that ac cordingly such a situation cannot be allowed to exist nor the liberty of an individual can be put to peril at the whims of the detaining authority
In taking that view the Delhi High Court also noticed the following observation made by this Court in Vakil Singh vs State of Jammu  Kashmir and another  Grounds  within the contemplation of Section 81 means materials on which the order of detention is primarily based
Apart from the conclusions of facts grounds  have a factual constituent also
They must contain the pith and substance of primary facts but not subsid iary facts or evidential details
 Although the Delhi High Court has referred to the above observation of this Court it has not considered the effect of such observation
The above observation lends support to the contention made on behalf of the respondents that only copies of documents on which the order of detention is primarily based should be supplied to the detenu and not any and every document
We must not however be understood to say that the detaining authority will not consider any other document
All that has to be shown is that any document which has bearing on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority but not relied upon by him was before the detaining authority at the time he passed the order of detention
In the instant case the detaining authority had placed reliance upon three civil miscellaneous applications filed in the said CR No 3694 of 1985 and supplied to the detenu copies of the said three civil miscellaneous applications
We do not find any substance in the contention made on behalf of the detenu that a copy of the civil revision petition should have also been supplied to him
The decision of this Court in Kirti Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya vs Union of India does not in our opinion help the contention of the detenu
In the instant case really the three civil miscellaneous applications have been re ferred to in the grounds of detention and not the civil revision petition mentioning of which is necessary in order to identify the civil miscellaneous applications
745 As regards CR No 306 of 1986 the detaining authority has in paragraph 28 of the grounds of detention referred to the shifting of the factory premises by Ms Expo Interna tional somewhere in Mohali but no specific address of the factory was declared by the firm either to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports  Exports or to any other authority
Mentioning of that fact in the grounds of detention does not in our opinion necessarily require the detaining authority to supply a copy of the civil revision petition in CR No 306 of 1986
At the same time it has to be pre sumed that the petition in the said civil revision case was before the detaining authority and he had to go through it otherwise he could not mention in the grounds of detention the fact of the shifting of the factory premises without disclosing any specific address of the same
In the circum stances we are of the view that the detenu was not preju diced for the non supply to him of the copies of the docu ments mentioned above and accordingly there is no sub stance in the contention that there was non application of mind by the detaining authority
The next contention of the detenu is that while the detaining authority had relied upon and referred to the confessional statement of the detenu as recorded by the Collector under section 108 of the  in the grounds of detention the retraction made by the detenu was not placed before the detaining authority for his considera tion
It is urged that if the retraction had been considered by the detaining authority his subjective satisfaction could have been in favour of the detenu and against making an order of detention
It is desirable that any retraction made should also be placed before the detaining authority
But that does not mean that if any such retraction is not placed before the detaining authority the order of detention would become invalid
Indeed this question came up for consideration before a Three Judge Bench of this Court in Prakash Chandra Mehta vs Commissioner and Secretary Government of Kerala  In that case a similar contention was made
This Court in overruling the contention has re ferred to section 5 A of the COFEPOSA Act and has observed as follows Section 5 A stipulates that when the deten tion order has been made on two or more grounds such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds and accordingly that if one irrelevant or one inadmissible ground had been taken into consideration that would not make the detention order bad
 746 In the instant case even assuming that the ground relating to the confessional statement made by the detenu under section 108 of the was an inadmissible ground as the subsequent retraction of the confessional statement was not considered by the detaining authority still then that would not make the detention order bad for in the view of this Court such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds
Therefore even excluding the inadmissible ground the order of detention can be justified
The High Court has also overruled the contention of the detenu in this regard and in our opinion rightly
In this Court the counter affidavit that has been filed on behalf of the respondents had been affirmed by Shri Kuldip Singh Under Secretary to the Government and not by the detaining authority himself
It is urged by Mr Sibal learned Counsel for the detenu that the counter affidavit not having been sworn by the detaining authority himself the averments made therein should not be taken notice of
One of the averments made in the counter affidavit is inter alia as follows The said Revision Petition No 30686 does find mentioning in para 28 of the grounds of detention
Therefore the said CR along with the above said four documents which were part thereof was before the detaining authority though the same were not relied upon in the grounds of detention
 The four documents referred to in the above statement are the said abeyance order and the show cause notices referred to hereinbefore
It is submitted that the deponent of the affidavit not being the detaining authority was not competent to say that the said documents were not relied upon by the detaining authority
It is true that the depo nent could not say whether the said documents were relied upon or not but in the facts stated in the counter affida vit this part of the statement of the deponent namely that the said documents were not relied upon by the detaining authority should be taken to be his submission
There can be no doubt that a deponent who has no personal knowledge about any fact may on the basis of some other facts make his submissions to court
We do not think that any impor tance should be attached to the said statement made by the deponent in the counter affidavit
No personal allegation of mala fide or bias has been made by the 747 detenu against the detaining authority
If such an allega tion had been made in that case the detaining authority should have himself sworn the counter affidavit either in this Court or in the High Court
In PL Lakhanpal vs Union of India  Ors  it has been observed by this Court that since no allegation of malice or dishonesty has been made in the petition personally against the Minis ter it is not possible to say that his omission to file an affidavit in reply by itself would be any ground to sustain the allegation of mala fides or nonapplication of mind
That observation also applies to the instant case where no per sonal allegation has been made against the detaining author ity
In Asgar Ali vs District Magistrate Burdwan and Others  the District Magistrate of Burdwan who passed the order of detention did not file his affidavit and this Court observed as follows Although normally the affidavit of the person actually making the detention order should be filed in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus the absence of such an affidavit would not necessarily be fatal for the case of the respondents
It would indeed depend upon the nature of allegations made by the detenu in the petition for determing whether the absence of affidavit of the person making the deten tion order introduces a fatal infirmity
In case an allegation is made that the officer making the detention order was actuated by some personal bias against the detenu in making the detention order the affidavit of the person making the detention order would be essential for repelling that allegation
Likewise such an affidavit would have to be filed in case serious allegations are made in the petition showing that the order was mala fide or based upon some extraneous considera tions
In the absence of any such allegation in the petition the fact that the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is not that of the District Magistrate but that of the Deputy Secretary Home Special Department of the Government of West Bengal would not by itself justify the quashing of the detention order
 Again in Suru Mallick vs State of West Bengal  the affidavit was not filed by the detaining au thority and in spite of that this Court upheld the validity of the order of detention
Thus merely because the detaining authority has not sworn an 748 affidavit it will not in all circumstances be fatal to the sustenance of the order of detention
The contention in this regard is therefore unsound and is rejected
The next ground of attach to the order of detention is the delay in considering the representation of the detenu
It is not disputed that the representation of the detenu dated January 17 1989 which was received by the Ministry of Finance COFEPOSA Cell New Delhi on 1811989 was rejected and the rejection memo was communicated to the detenu on 2021989
Prima facie it appears that there has been a long gap between the receipt of the representation the consider ation thereof and the communication of the result of such consideration to the detenu
In paragraph XXIV of the coun ter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated as follows The representation dated 1711989 was re ceived in COFEPOSA Unit of the Ministry on 1811989 under cover of letter dated 1711989 of Central Jail Tihar
The repre sentation was sent to CCE Chandigarh for comments on 1911989
Comments of Collector were received on 1821989
Under cover of Collector s letter dated 921989
The repre sentation along with comments were analysed by the Under Secretary and put up to the detain ing authority and JS on 1321989
1121989  1221989 were holidays
The detaining author ity rejected the representation addressed to him on 132
1989 and marked the file to MOS RFM for consideration of representation addressed to Central Government
MOS R rejected the representation subject to approv al by FM on 1721989
FM rejected the repre sentation on 1721989
The rejection memo was issued on 2021989
1821989 and 1921989 were holidays At the hearing of this appeal the learned Counsel for the respondents handed over to us a list of dates showing that a number of holidays intervened between one date and another and hence the apparent delay
It appears that the Collector of Central Excise  Customs received the represen tation for his comments on 2311
1989 and handed over the same to the dealing officer for comments on 241
1989 and the Collector s comment was made on 921989
Between 2511989 and 821989 a number of holidays intervened namely 2611989 Republic Day 2811989 and 2911989 Saturday and Sunday and 42 1989 and 521989 Saturday and Sunday
On 749 92
1989 it was sent to the Ministry of Finance COFEPOSA CELL New Delhi and was received by that Ministry on 102
1989111 1989 and 1221989 being Saturday and Sunday were holidays
On 132
1989 it was put up before the Joint Secretary COFEPOSA and was sent to the Minister of State Revenue
The file was received back after the rejection of the representation and such rejection was communicated to the detenu on 2021989
The two intervening dates namely 1821989 and 1921989 being Saturday and Sunday were holidays
It is clear from the above statement that there was no laches or negligence on the part of the detaining authority or the other authorities concerned in dealing with the representation of the detenu
In Mst
LMS Ummu Saleema vs Shri BB Gujaral and Another  it has been observed that the time imperative can never be absolute or obsessive and that the occasional observations made by this Court that each day s delay in dealing with the representa tion must be adequately explained are meant to emphasise the expedition with which the representation must be considered and not that it is a medical formula the slightest breach of which must result in the release of the detenu
In the instant case the detaining authority has explained the delay in the disposal of the representation made by the detenu and accordingly the order of detention cannot be rendered invalid on that ground
Lastly it is argued that the life of each of the ad vance licences has long expired and therefore there is no chance of the detenu in involving himself in smuggling activities as he would not be in a position to import any goods by virtue of the advance licences
It is submitted that the object of such detention is not punitive but is preventive
As there is no chance for the detenu to act in violation of the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act the deten tion order should be quashed on that ground
In support of that contention strong reliance has been placed on behalf of the detenu on a decision of the Delhi High Court in Achla Kakkar vs Administrator Union Territory of Delhi and Others 1988 Crl
Law Journal 1896 where it has been observed that the recurrence of breach of such economic offence can be effectively prevented by black listing the person concerned his detention under the COFE POSA Act was in the nature of punishment liable to be quashed
In that case also the detenu imported polyester zips and sold the same in the market without complying with the conditions of the advance li 750 cences
There is however an important point of distinction between the facts of that case and those of the instant case before us
In that case the licences were issued in the name of the detenu himself
But here the licences were issued not in the name of the detenu but to the name of the said two firms which according to the detaining authority had really no existence and were the benami concerns of the detenu
It is contended by Mr Mahajan learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that if the detenu is released he may indulge in such economic offences in setting up fictitious firms and taking out advance licences in the name of such firms
We have taken into consideration the allegations made in the grounds of detention and in the counter affidavit and it appears that in the names of the said two firms huge amount of export duty has been evaded and the imported goods which have been allowed to be cleared have been sold in the market
We are unable to accept the contention made on behalf of the detenu that the goods were cleared and sold under the orders of the High Court
It has been rightly observed in the impugned order of the High Court that surely the High Court did not permit the detenu to sell the goods in the market
It may be that a part of the imported goods has not been allowed to be cleared and stands forfeit ed to the Government but that is no ground in favour of the detenu
The Government may realise a part of the duty by selling those goods but that is neither here nor there
The fact remains that the detenu got the goods cleared and sold the same in the market
We find no reason not to accept the contention of the respondents that the licences were pro cured by the detenu with a view to importing the goods duty free and selling the same in the market and thereby making a huge profit to the loss and detriment of national economy
After giving our anxious consideration to all aspects of the case we uphold the judgment of the High Court
and dismiss the appeal
Writ Petition Criminal No 222 of 1989
The disposal of the above appeal means the disposal of the writ petition
The writ petition is accordingly dis missed
RSS Appeal and Petition dismissed


Summary:
The petitioners in the special leave petition started without recognition a teachers training college in Bihar and later applied for permission to allow its students to appear at the examination on the ground that the question of its recognition had not been decided by the Government
The petitioners failed to get the desired relief from the High Court
Dismissing the special leave petition this Court HELD 1 A number of mushroom institutions have sprung up in the State of Bihar without getting any recognition and thereafter have tried to get the permission from courts that its students be allowed to appear at the examination on grounds of sympathy
24G 2 It is not possible to grant any such permission as prayed for because the granting of such permission would be clearly violating the provisions of the Education Act
25B SLP No 12014 of 1987 decided on November 25 1987 AP Christians Medical Educational Society vs Government of AP  Anr   referred to
3 The application for recognition in this case was made by the petitioners as early as 1986 and that applica tion has not still been disposed of
The same should be disposed of within 4 weeks from today
25F 4 The concerned department of the Government of Bihar should see to it that applications for recognition of educa tional institutions are decided promptly and where such an application is without 24 merit the Government should promptly reject the same and take steps to see to it that the rejection is brought to the attention of the students of the institution concerned so that they may not waste further time and money by undergoing training in that institution
25C 5 The failure of the Government to take such action would only reflect callous indifference to the interests of the young students to whom the Government certainly owes certain responsibilities
25D 6 The State should consider taking such steps Crimi nal or Civil as open to it in law to stop such institu tions and those who run them from misleading students and deceiving them
25E 7 The State Government of Bihar shall get published advertisements in at least three newspapers in that State with wide circulation warning students not to take admission in any educational institution which has not got recognition and making it clear that if they do so they would be doing so at their own risk