Ranganath Misra, J. - (1.) In each of these applications under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioner therein challenges the order of detention made against him under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Cofeposa) (referred to as the 'Act' hereinafter). As the facts are more or less the same and common contentions have been advanced, these two applications are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1541/84 was detained with effect from December 28, 1983, pursuant to an order made under Section 3(1) of the Act on December 7, 1983. The detention was assailed before the Gujarat High Court in a writ petition filed on January 22, 1984. While the said application was being heard, the order of detention was revoked on April 5, 1984, but on the same day another order under S. 3(1) of the Act was made directing his detention and he was detained pursuant to that order with effect from the very day. The second order of detention was challenged by a new writ petition before the High Court. A Division Bench of that Court by order dated August 8, 1984, quashed the same by holding that the order of detention was violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution and directed the petitioner to be set at liberty. On August 20, 1984, a fresh order was made detaining the petitioner and with effect from the same day the petitioner was detained again. On the date of detention the petitioner was served with documents along with the grounds of detention. The writ petition has been filed in this Court challenging that order of detention.
(3.) So far as the petitioner in writ petition No. 1542/84 is concerned, he was detained with effect from January 12, 1984 pursuant to an order under S. 3 of the Act dated January 2, 1984. That order of detention was assailed before the High Court and in course of the hearing of the writ petition, the order of detention was revoked on April 5, 1984. On the selfsame day another order of detention was passed and the petitioner was detained with effect from that date. On April 10, 1984, the petitioner assailed his detention by filing a second writ petition. On August 8, 1984, the High Court quashed that order of detention on similar grounds as in the connected writ petition. On August 20, 1984, a fresh order of detention was made under which the petitioner has been taken into custody. His writ petition assails that order of detention. During the pendency of these writ petitions before this Court the Act was amended by Central Act 58/84. The Amending Act received assent of the President on August 30, 1984 but became effective from July 31, 1984. Section 9 of the principal Act of 1974 was amended by S. 2 of this Act and the amended provision authorised making of a declaration by the Central Government or any officer of the Central Government not below the rank of Additional Secretary to that Government on the basis of satisfaction that the detenu "(a) smuggles or is likely to smuggle goods into, out of or through any area highly vulnerable to smuggling; or (b) abets or is likely to abet the smuggling of goods into, out of or through any area highly vulnerable to smuggling:or (c) engages or is likely to engage in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods in any area highly vulnerable to smuggling." A declaration as contemplated by the amended provision was made by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) in respect of each of the petitioners on September 18, 1984, and this declaration has been placed on record along with an affidavit of the respondents. Under S. 10 of the Act the maximum period of detention is one year where section 9 is not invoked, but where a declaration is made, the maximum period is extended up to two years. When rule was issued an affidavit in opposition has been filed justifying the order of detention and the petitioner has also filed a rejoinder.;