(1.)These appeals are directed against the orders dated june 27 and June 30, 1989 passed by the Bombay High court in Criminal writ Petition No. 489 of 1989 and Criminal Application No. 1347 of 1989 respectively. An order of detention was passed on 13/12/1985 against respondent l's husband, Subhash Chander Gadia under Section 3 (1 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smug- gling Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as the "cofeposa"). He could not, however, be served with the said order as he was absconding. Hence a declaration was made that he was a person who fell within the category mentioned in S. 2 (b) of the Smugglers and Foreign exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "safema"). Thereafter, a notice dated 31/03/1987 was issued to him under Ss. (1 of S. 6 of the safema to show cause as to why the properties mentioned in the schedule to the said notice should not be forfeited to the central Government for reasons recorded in the accompaniment. A copy of the notice along with the schedule of the properties and the copy of the reasons for forfeiture of the property was also sent to respondent 1 by letter of 27/02/1989.
(2.)Respondent 1 filed the aforesaid writ petition in the High court challenging the detention order of 13/12/1985 as well as the show cause notice of 31/03/1987. The High court by its impugned decision held that the writ petition was maintainable for challenging the detention order even though the detenu was not served with the order and he had thus not surrendered to the authorities. The High court furtherer directed that the detention order, the grounds of detention, and the documents relied upon for passing the detention order be furnished to the detenu and that they should also be produced before the court. The high court also directed the authorities to supply the said documents to the counsel for respondent 1. The said order was passed on 27/06/1989 and the authorities were directed to furnish the documents to respondent I by 5.30 p. m. on 29/06/1989. Thereafter, the matter was directed to stand over till 3/07/1989 to enable respondent 1 to consider whether any amendment to the writ petition was required. The court also directed that the matter be posted for further direction on 30/06/1989.
(3.)The Assistant Director of Enforcement filed an affidavit on 29/06/1989 stating that under Article 22 (5 of the Constitution, the grounds a of detention have to be given to the person when he is detained. Since even the constitutional mandate did not go further than that, the detaining authority could not be compelled to furnish the documents to anybody else other than the detenu after he is detained. The authority also showed its willingness to produce the documents for the perusal of the high court without showing them first to respondent 1.