The detenu P1, a French national, at the relevant time was employed as Airport Manager by A1 in L1. By an A1 flight, on September 20, 1981, he arrived at International Airport, L2 and passed through green channel indicating he had no dutiable goods to declare to the Customs Authorities. When he was at Exit Gate No. 1, the Intelligence Officer questioned him about the contents of two suitcases an other packages carried by him. The reply led to the inspection of the baggages which led to the recovery of watch parts weighing 4 1/2 Kgs, in 8 packages. 1. This led to a further enquiry, and evaluation of the watch parts led to the conclusion that the value was Rs. 3, 91, 200 CIF. Ultimately, the Government, on December 16, 1981, made an order of detention with a view to preventing an detenu from smuggling goods. On the same day, he was furnished grounds of detention which inter alia referred to the smuggling of the watch parts and two wrist-watches The detenu filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the High Court at L2. Before the High Court, three contentions were advanced on behalf of the detenu. They were "(1) It was a case of solitary incident, and prosecution was pending; (2) The detention order was mala fide having been served to prevent the Magistrate from passing an order on the application for leaving India; (3) All material documents relevant for subjective satisfaction were not considered and the order has been passed mechanically." The Division Bench of the High Court which heard the petition held on ground number 1 that even though this is the first time the detenu was found indulging in smuggling activities and a prosecution might have been launched yet taking into account all the relevant materials, satisfaction on likelihood of repetition of smuggling activities in future seem to be real. In respect of ground No. 2, the Court was of the opinion that even though the detention order was made on December 16, 1981, the day fixed for pronouncing order on the application of the detenu seeking permission to leave India, yet the file shows that the screening committee had taken the decision of recommending the detention of the detenu as well as those other persons connected with the different incidents so far back as on November 19, 1981 and the actual proposal recommending detention by Customs Authority was forwarded on November 25, 1981. 2. The counter-affidavit before the High Court disclosed that the detaining authority did not know that an application for permission to leave India was filed by the detenu and the decision of the Chief Judicial Magistrate was likely to be pronounced on December 16, 1981, the day on which the detention order was made. After taking note of this fact, the High Court rejected the contention. On the 3rd contention, the Court was of the opinion that there is nothing to show that there was no consideration of material documents and rejected the same. Ultimately, the High Court rejected the petition of the detenu The detenu filed a petition for special leave against the judgment of the High Court as also a writ petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It appears that the writ petition was filed with a view to urging some additional grounds which were not raised before the High Court and, frankly, speaking learned counsel for the detenu, did not press any of the contentions which were canvassed before the High Court, but urged three other contentions which the High Court was not invited to examine On behalf of the detenu, the learned counsel questioned the validity and legality of the detention order on the following three grounds :- The Detaining Authority viz. Secretary to the Government, L2 Home Department (Law and Order) did not consider the representation and thereby violated constitutional guarantee. Even if detenu is alleged to have made a confessional statement, the same was retracted before the detention order was made and yet there is nothing to show that the detaining authority took into consideration the fact that the confession was retracted and it is quite likely that the confessional statement itself may have influenced his mind and, therefore, the detention order is vitiated. Alternatively, it was contended that in any view of the matter, the fact that as the confessional statement was retracted by the detenu, the retraction ought to have been sent to the Advisory Board. It appears that by the continued detention, the detenu has suffered mental disorder as revealed by the report of Senior Psychiatrist. Dr. D1, Senior Psychiatrist of Central Mental Hospital, Yervada and in view of this report, continued detention of the detenu is likely to inflict irreparable harm and, therefore, also the detention on the ground of humanitarian consideration requires to be terminated.