- (1.) On 22.9.83 Mr. Ram Jathmalani, learned counsel appeared for the petitioner and drew the attention of the Court to the decision of this Court in Ram Bali Rajbhai v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 1975 (3) SCR at 63 . This decision appears to lay down that after initial reference of the detenue's case with her representation to the Advisory Board subsequently as and when a representation is made by the detenue a meeting of the Advisory Board must be convened and the representation must be placed before it and considered failing which further detention may become illegal. To-day Mr. M.S. Gujaral, ]earned counsel for respondent drew our attention to the case of Smt. Pushpa v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1979 SC 1953 in which respondent was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. It was observed that as and when a representation is made under sec. I 1 of the COFEPOSA requires either the State Government or the Central Government, as the case may be, to revoke the detention order, it has to be considered by the detaining authority. If considered by detaining authority it would be open to the detaining authority to revoke the order. But in this later decision it is not suggested that every time a representation is made by a detenue it is obligatory upon the detaining authority or the State Government or the Central Government, as the case may be, to convene Advisory Board call upon it to consider the fresh representation, on the pain of invalidation of detention subsequent to the making of a second subsequent representation.
(2.) We were also told that there are at least two other judgments of the court bearing on this topic.
(3.) As the decision in Ram Bali Rajbhai case is of three Hon'ble Judges, it would be binding upon us. The broad proposition therein laid down requires reconsideration. Therefore, papers of this case may be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to be placed before a Bench of five Hon'ble Judges, till Ram Bali Rajbhai decision holds the field the detaining authority was bound by the law laid down by this Courts and cannot be permitted to ignore or sidetrack it. Till the larger bench takes up the petitioner's case, some relief may be given to him otherwise he is in no way better of by the reference. Detenue has suffered detention for a period of ten months. He is ordered to be detained for twelve months. We direct that the detenue be released on parole on such terms as the detaining authority may consider proper and adequate. This direction be carried out within four days from today.;