B.N.Katju, J. - (1.) This is a petition filed on behalf of Mushtaq Ahmad Khan for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus.
(2.) It appears that an order under Section 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act hereinafter referred to as the Act, was passed by the State Government against Mushtaq Ahmad Khan and he was arrested on 23-10-1980 in compliance with the aforesaid order and the grounds of detention were served on him on that very day. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan made a representation against the aforesaid order on 12-11-1980 and prayed that the copies of the statements on which the grounds of detention were based and the recovery list (Panchnama) be supplied to him. The statements on which the grounds of detention were based were served on him on 13-11-1980. The representation of Mushtaq Ahmad Khan was rejected by the State Government on 24-11-1980 and the grounds of detention and the representation of Mushtaq Ahmad Khan were placed before the Advisory Board on 25-11-1980. The Advisory Board recommended the confirmation of the order of detention and the State Government by its order dated 12-12-1980 confirmed the detention of the petitioner in accordance with the opinion of the Advisory Board.
(3.) Admittedly the statements of Mushtaq Ahmad Khan and the four other co-accused who were arrested along with Mushtaq Ahmad Khan were not supplied to Mushtaq Ahmad Khan along with the grounds of detention on 23-10-1980. Even if it be held that the grounds of detention contained the substance of the statements of Mushtaq Ahmad Khan and the four other co-accused who were arrested along with him on 23-10-1980 the State Government was still required to supply the copies of the statements of Mushtaq ; Ahmad Khan and the four other co-accused arrested along with him along with the grounds of detention as the aforesaid statements were the basic facts and materials on which the grounds of detention were based and it was not possible for Mushtaq Ahmad Khan to make an effective representation without them. We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Supreme Court in Ganga Ramchand Bhar-vani v. Under-Secretary to the Govt of Maharashtra AIR1980 SC 1744 , 1980 CriLJ1263 , (1980 )4 SCC624 , [1981 ]1 SCR343 in which it has been held : The mere fact that the grounds of detention served on the detenu are elaborate, does not absolve the detaining authority from its constitutional responsibility to supply all the basic facts and materials relied upon in the grounds to the detenu. In the instant case, the grounds contain only the substance of the statements while the detenu had ssked for copies of the full text of those statements. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of the full text of these statements which had been referred to and relied upon in the 'grounds of detention', the detenu could not make an effective representation and there is disobedience of the second constitutional imperative pointed out in Khudiram's case , AIR1975 SC 550 , (1975 )2 SCC81 , [1975 ]2 SCR832 . There is merit in this submission.;