{"id":97263,"date":"1982-03-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1982-03-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devji-vallabhbhai-tandel-etc-vs-the-administrator-of-goa-daman-on-29-march-1982"},"modified":"2018-09-28T08:24:31","modified_gmt":"2018-09-28T02:54:31","slug":"devji-vallabhbhai-tandel-etc-vs-the-administrator-of-goa-daman-on-29-march-1982","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devji-vallabhbhai-tandel-etc-vs-the-administrator-of-goa-daman-on-29-march-1982","title":{"rendered":"Devji Vallabhbhai Tandel Etc vs The Administrator Of Goa, Daman & … on 29 March, 1982"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Devji Vallabhbhai Tandel Etc vs The Administrator Of Goa, Daman & … on 29 March, 1982<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR 1029, \t\t 1982 SCR (3) 553<\/div>\n
Author: B Islam<\/div>\n
Bench: Islam, Baharul (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDEVJI VALLABHBHAI TANDEL ETC\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE ADMINISTRATOR OF GOA, DAMAN & DIU & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT29\/03\/1982\n\nBENCH:\nISLAM, BAHARUL (J)\nBENCH:\nISLAM, BAHARUL (J)\nDESAI, D.A.\nSEN, A.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1982 AIR 1029\t\t  1982 SCR  (3) 553\n 1982 SCC  (2) 222\t  1982 SCALE  (1)246\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1983 SC 505\t (3)\n R\t    1988 SC2089\t (29)\n\n\nACT:\n     Conservation of  Foreign  Exchange\t and  Prevention  of\nSmuggling Activities Act-Section 3-Detention order passed by\nAdministrator of Goa-Administrator if competent to pass such\norder.\n     Detenu-Whether has a right to be represented by a legal\npractitioner or friend or agent before the Advisory Board.\n     Union  Territories\t Act  1963-Section  46(2)-Scope\t of-\nAdministrator-Whether bound  by the  advice  of\t Council  of\nMinisters.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     In their petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution\nthe three  petitioners who  were detained under section 3 of\nthe Conservation  of  Foreign  Exchange\t and  Prevention  of\nSmuggling Activities Act, 1974, contended that in the matter\nof discharge  of executive functions conferred upon him, the\nAdministrator of  the Union  Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu\nwho passed the impugned orders, is in the same position as a\nGovernor of a State or the President who must act on the aid\nand advice  of the  Council of\tMinisters and  that  in\t the\ninstant case  the orders  of detention having been passed by\nthe Administrator  himself instead  of by the Chief Minister\nin the name of the Administrator, were invalid.\n     Dismissing the petitions,\n^\n     HELD :1.  (a)  Although  section  46(2)  of  the  Union\nTerritories Act,  1963 provides that all executive action of\nthe Administrator,  whether  taken  on\tthe  advice  of\t his\nMinisters or otherwise shall be expressed to be taken in the\nname of the Administrator, the Administrator is not purely a\nconstitutional functionary who is bound to act on the advice\nof the\tCouncil of  Ministers and  could not act on his own.\nThe language  of Arts.\t74 and\t163 on\tthe one hand and the\nlanguage of  section 44 of the Union Territories Act 1963 on\nthe other shows that the Administrator is similarly situated\nwith the  Governor but\tnot with The President when he is to\nact in\this  discretion\t under\tthe  Act.  While  exercising\njudicial or  quasi judicial functions, the Administrator has\nto act\ton his\town unaided by the Council of Ministers like\nthe President  who,  while  exercising\tpower  conferred  by\nArticle 217(3),\t discharges judicial  function\tand  is\t not\nrequired to act on the\n554\nadvice of  the Council\tof Ministers.  But there the analogy\nends. The  Administrator, even\tin matters  where he  is not\nrequired to  act in his discretion under the Act or where he\nis not\texercising any judicial or quasi-judicial functions,\nis not\tbound to  act according to the advice of the Council\nof Ministers. In the event of difference between him and his\nMinisters, the\tAdministrator under  the proviso  to section\n44(1) of  the Act,  is required\t to refer  the matter to the\nPresident for  decision and  act according to that decision.\nTherefore in  such a  situation the right to give a decision\non the\tdifference of  opinion between\tthe two vests in the\nUnion Government  and the  Council of Ministers of the Union\nTerritory is  bound by\tthe view  of the  Union\t Government.\nThere are  also\t powers\t in  the  Administrator\t to  act  in\nderogation of the advice of the Council of Ministers.\n\t\t\t\t\t  [560 C-D, 561 A-H]\n     (b) The  proviso to  section  44(1)  of  the  Act\talso\nenvisages that\twhen a difference of opinion between him and\nthe Council  of Ministers  is referred\tto the President, if\nthe Administrator  considers the matter urgent and necessary\nto take\t immediate action  during the  interregnum,  he\t can\ncompletely override  the advice\t of the Council of Ministers\nand act\t according to his own lights which power neither the\nGovernor nor the President enjoys. [562 A-C]\n     Shamsher Singh  Anr. v.  State or\tPunjab, [1976] 1 SCR\n814 held in applicable.\n     2. The  grievance that  the detaining  authority had no\nmaterial from  which to\t infer\tthat  the  petitioners\twere\nengaged in  smuggling activities  is not  borne out  by\t the\nmaterial on  record. Copies of recorded statements and other\nrelevant documents  had been taken into consideration by the\ndetaining authority.  These  copies  were  supplied  to\t the\ndetenu. [563 A-B]\n     3. It  cannot be  said that  there was any violation of\nArticle 22(5)  of the Constitution or that the detenu was in\nany way\t handicapped in\t submitting  his  representation.  A\nGujarati  translation\tof  the\t grounds  of  detention\t was\nsupplied to  the detenu. The order of detention was a formal\nrecital of  section 3(1)  of the  R COFEPOSA Act showing the\nprovision of law under which the order of detention had been\nmade. Although\tthe section of the COFEPOSA Act has not been\nmentioned. the\tgrounds of detention were sufficiently clear\nto bring home to the detenu that he was engaged in smuggling\nactivities. [565 F, C-E]\n     The State\tof Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya,<\/a> [1951]\n2 SCR 167, held inapplicable.\n     4. (a)  Clause (e)\t of section 8 of the COFEPOSA Act in\nexpress terms disentities a detenu to appeal through a legal\npractitioner in\t any matter  connected with the reference to\nthe Advisory Board. It is now well settled that the right to\nconsult and  be defended  by a\tlegal practitioner  of one's\nchoice conferred by a Article 22(1) is denied by clause 3(b)\nto a  person who  is detained  under any  law providing\t for\npreventive detention. According to the express intendment of\nthe Constitution  itself no person who is detained under any\nlaw which  provides for\t preventive detention  can claim the\nright to consult a legal practitioner of his\n555\nchoice or  be defended\tby him.\t Therefore it cannot be said\nthat a\tdetenu has the right of being represented by a legal\npractitioner in\t the proceedings  before the Advisory Board.\n[570 F]\n     (b) The embargo on the appearance of legal practitioner\ndoes not apply to a friend who in truth and substance is not\na legal\t practitioner; but  if such a friend also happens to\nbe a  legal practitioner he cannot as of right appear before\nthe Advisory Board on behalf of the detenu. [574 F]\n     (c) So  is the  case with\treference to  agents. If  an\nagent is  in truth  and substance  an agent,  the detenu may\nappear\tthrough\t  him;\tbut   if  the\tagent  is   a  legal\npractitioner, appearance by him as of right would be barred.\nA friend  or an\t agent of  the detenu  who is  essentially a\ncomrade in  the profession  of the  detenu for\twhich he  is\ndetained, such\ta friend  or agent would also be barred from\nappearance on  behalf of  the detenu.  Although a person may\nhave a\tcommon law  right to  appoint an  agent there  is no\nobligation on  the other  side to  deal with  the agent. The\nother side  has an  equal right\t to refuse  to deal  with an\nagent.\n\t\t\t\t\t    [574 G-H, 575 A]\n     In the  instant case  the sender of the telegram stated\nin clear  terms that he was an advocate and was representing\nthe detenu.  He had not stated that he was a friend or agent\nof the\tdetenu and therefore the Administrator was justified\nin refusing permission to the advocate to assist the detenu.\n[575 C-E]\n     5.\t A   person  detained  under  a\t law  providing\t for\npreventive  detention\tcannot\tclaim\tas   a\t matter\t  of\nconstitutional right  to consult and be defended by a lawyer\nof his\tchoice; nor can be insist upon being produced before\na' Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest. This is evident\nfrom Article  22  (3)(b)  which\t provides  that\t nothing  in\nclauses (1)  and (2)  of this  Article shall  apply  to\t any\nperson who  is arrested\t or detained under any law providing\nfor preventive detention.\n\t\t\t\t\t      [575 G-H; A-B]\n     6.\t It   is  implicit   in\t Articles   22(5)  that\t the\nrepresentation\thas   to   be\ta   written   representation\ncommunicated through  the jail\tauthorities  or\t through  my\nother mode  which the detenu thinks fit of adopting. But the\ndetaining authority is under no obligation to grant any oral\nhearing at  the time  of considering  the representation. If\nthe representation has to be a written representation, there\nis no  question\t of  hearing  anyone  much  less  a  lawyer.\nTherefore, the\tAdministrator's refusal to hear the advocate\nof the detenu while considering the representation would not\nbe denial  of the  common law  right of\t the  detenu  to  be\nrepresented by an agent. [577 A-C]\n     Francis  Coralie  Mullin  v.  The\tAdministrator  Union\nTerritory of Delhi Ors.,<\/a>[1981] 2 SCR 516, held inapplicable,\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  : Writ  Petition (CRL) Nos. 8070
\nof 1981, 23 and 29 of 1982.\n<\/p>\n
\t   (Under Article 32 of the Constitution)
\n556<\/span>
\n     Ram  Jethmalani   and  Miss  Rani\tJethmalani  for\t the
\nPetitioners.\n<\/p>\n
     Eduardo  Falireo\tand  Miss   A.\tSubhashini  for\t the
\nRespondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     BAHARUL ISLAM,  J. These  three  writ  petitions  under
\nArticle 32  of the  Constitution  of  India  involve  common
\nquestions of  facts and\t law. This  common  order  of  ours,
\ntherefore,  will   dispose  of\tall  of\t them.\tIt  will  be
\nsufficient if  we refer\t to the\t facts only of Writ Petition
\nNo. 8070  of 1981.  This petition  is directed\tagainst\t the
\norder dated 11th September, 1981 made under Section 3 of the
\nConservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling
\nActivities Act,\t 1974 (the COFEPOSA) by the Administrator of
\nGoa,  Daman   and  Diu\t(hereinafter  ‘the  Administrator’),
\ndetaining the petitioner “with a view to preventing him from
\nsmuggling goods”.\n<\/p>\n
     2. The  material facts  in a nutshell as alleged in the
\ngrounds of  detention in  Writ Petition No. 8070 of 1981 are
\nthat the  petitioner along  with Lallu\tGovan  Tandel  alias
\nLallu Malbari,\tNarsingh Vallabhbhai Tandel (the petitioners
\nin  the\t  other\t two   writ  petitions)\t  and\tNarsinghbhai
\nDaulabhbhai (detenu since released) indulged in smuggling of
\nforeign goods  such as\tfabrics, speakers,  cassettes, video
\ncassettes, wrist  watches, refrigerators,  silver,  etc.  be
\ngoods in 36 packages were recovered from House No. 12\/134 of
\nDaman Municipal\t Area. These  goods were  kept there  by two
\npersons,  namely;   Tulsibhai\tRanchhodhbhai\tTandel\t and
\nMangalbhai Bhula  bhai Tandel  engaged by the aforesaid four
\ndetenus for  lifting the  said 36  packages  from  a  vessel
\ngrounded in  sea off Ghati Sheri, Nani Daman. The contraband
\ngoods recovered\t were worth  Rs. 5,30,281.50.  The aforesaid
\nTulsidas and Mangalbhai made certain statements on 2nd July,
\n1981 implicating  the aforesaid\t four persons  including the
\npetitioner. When  the Customs  squad was  keeping a watch on
\nNani Daman  coast, a  vessel was  found in the sea and goods
\nwere being  unloaded. In the process Tulsibbai Ranchhodhbhai
\nand Mangalbhai\tBhulabhai  were\t accosted  and\teach  had  a
\npackage with  him and on being led by them the customs squad
\nreached the  house bearing  municipal No.  12\/134. On  being
\nquestioned, the\t aforementioned two  labourers Tulsibhai and
\nMangalbhai stated  that they  were engaged  as labourers for
\ntransporting packages  of contraband  goods  from  a  vessel
\ngrounded in  sea on Ghatisheri to the said house bearing No.
\n12\/134. Tulsibhai and Mangalbhai, in the course of
\n557<\/span>
\ninterrogation, admitted\t that they  were engaged  by  detenu
\nDevji Vallabhbhai  Tandel and  Lallu Govan for unloading the
\npackages containing contraband goods.\n<\/p>\n
     3.\t The   impugned\t order\t of  detention\t dated\t11th
\nSeptember, 1981\t (Annexure ‘A’) together with the grounds of
\ndetention (Annexure  ‘B’) were\tserved on  the petitioner on
\nJune 30,1981, which was the date of apprehension.\n<\/p>\n
     4. The  first submission of Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned
\ncounsel for  the petitioner, is that under the Government of
\nUnion Territories  Act, 1963,  (hereinafter  the  Act),\t the
\norder of  detention can\t be made  only by the Chief Minister
\nand in\tthe name  of  the  Administrator  and  not-  by\t the
\nAdministrator, though  it can  be made\tin the\tname of\t the
\nAdministrator. In  the instant\tcase, the order of detention
\nwas made, and the representation dated 10th October, 1981 of
\nthe petitioner\twas disposed of, by the Administrator, which
\nit is submitted, is not permissible in law.\n<\/p>\n
     The argument  sought to  be made  seems to\t be that the
\nstatus of  the Administrator  is  similar  to  that  of\t the
\nGovernor of a State and as such the Administrator had to act
\nwith the  aid  and  advice  of\tthe  Council  of  Ministers.
\nAdmittedly, there  is an  elected Assembly with a Council of
\nMinisters in  the Union\t Territory of  Goa, Daman  and\tDiu.
\nTherefore, the\targument proceeds,  the Administrator on his
\nown cannot make an order of detention. The order can be made
\nby the\tChief Minister\tor any other person authorised under
\nsection of the COFEPOSA in the name of the Administrator.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  other hand\t in  paragraph\t7  of  the  counter-
\naffidavit, it  has been\t stated by the respondent, “that the
\nrespondent has full authority to make the order of detention
\nunder COFEPOSA in exercise of the powers conferred under the
\nstatute. In  case of  the Union\t Territories  the  power  of
\ndetention is  specifically conferred on the Administrator by
\nvirtue of  the definition  of the  “State Government”  under
\nSection 2  (f) of  the COFEPOSA\t Act, 1974  and as  such the
\nAdministrator as  the detaining\t authority, has\t to form his
\nown opinion and is not bound to act on the aid and advice of
\nhis Council of Ministers .. Even, then the Administrator has
\nconsidered the\tadvice of  the Chief  Minister, who  is\t the
\nMinister in-charge  of the  department dealing with COFEPOSA
\nmatters”.\n<\/p>\n
558<\/span><\/p>\n
     5. Mr.  Eduardo Faleiro,  learned counsel appearing for
\nRespondent No.\tl (the\tAdministrator) has placed the entire
\nrecords before\tus. On\ta perusal of the relevant papers, we
\nfind that  the matter  was routed through the Chief Minister
\nwho considered\tthe case  and sent  it to the Administrator,
\nwho thereafter, passed the order of detention. There is thus
\na substantial  compliance of Section 3 of the COFEPOSA. Even
\nso, the\t legal submission  of  learned\tcounsel\t has  to  be
\nanswered, as he urged it with vehemence.\n<\/p>\n
     6.\t  Section 2 (f) of the COFEPOSA provides:\n<\/p>\n
\t    “In\t this  Act,  unless  the  context  otherwise
\n\t  requires,-\n<\/p>\n
\t  (f)  “State Government”,  in relation\t to a  Union
\n\t       Territory, means the administrator thereof”.
\n     In the  Union Territories\tAct, 1963  (hereinafter\t the
\n‘Act’), under  clause (a)  of sub-section  (1) of Section 2,
\n‘Administrator’ has been defined as:\n<\/p>\n
\t  ” ‘Administrator’  means the\tadministrator  of  a
\n     Union  Territory\tappointed  by  the  President  under
\n     article 239″<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Under clause  (h) of  sub-section\t(1)  of\t Section  2,
\n“Union Territory” has been defined as:\n<\/p>\n
\t  ”  ‘Union   Territory’  means\t any  of  the  Union
\n     Territories of……  Goa, Daman and Diu.. “. (Material
\n     portion only)
\n     Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Provides:
\n\t  “The Central Government or the State Government or
\n     any officer  of the  Central Government,  not below the
\n     rank of a Joint Secretary to that Government, specially
\n     empowered for  the purposes  of this  section  by\tthat
\n     Government, or  any officer  of a State Government, not
\n     below the\trank of\t a  Secretary  to  that\t Government,
\n     specially empowered for the purposes of this section by
\n     that Government, may, if satisfied, with respect to any
\n     person (including\ta Foreigner),  that, with  a view to
\n     preventing him from acting in any manner Prejudicial to
\n     the conservation or argumenta-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
559<\/span><\/p>\n
     tion of  foreign exchange\tor with a view to preventing
\n     him  from\n<\/p>\n
      (i) smuggling goods, or\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) abetting the smuggling of goods, or\n<\/p>\n
    (iii) engaging in  transporting or concealing or keeping
\n\t  smuggled goods, or\n<\/p>\n
     (iv) dealing  in\tsmuggled  goods\t otherwise  than  by
\n\t  engaging in  transporting or concealing or keeping
\n\t  smuggled goods, or\n<\/p>\n
     (v)  harbouring persons  engaged in  smuggling goods or
\n\t  in abetting the smuggling of goods,
\n     it is  necessary so to do, make an order directing that
\nsuch person be detained”.\n<\/p>\n
     The fasciculus  of Sections  44 to 46 in Part IV of the
\nAct provides  for setting up a Council of Ministers. Section
\n44 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “44. Council\tof Ministers-(I)  There shall  be  a
\n     Council of\t Ministers in  each Union Territory with the
\n     Chief Minister  at the  head  to  aid  and\t advise\t the
\n     Administrator in  the  exercise  of  his  functions  in
\n     relation  to   matters  with   respect  to\t  which\t the
\n     Legislative Assembly  of the  Union Territory has power
\n     to make  laws except  in so far as he is required by or
\n     under this\t Act to act in his discretion or by or under
\n     any law  to exercise  any judicial\t or  quasi  judicial
\n     functions:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided that\t in case  of difference\t of  opinion
\n     between the  Administrator and  his  Ministers  on\t any
\n     matter,  the   Administrator  shall  refer\t it  to\t the
\n     President\tfor   decision\tand  act  according  to\t the
\n     decision given  thereon by\t the President,\t and pending
\n     such  decision   it  shall\t  be   competent   for\t the
\n     Administrator in  any case\t where the  matter is in his
\n     opinion so\t urgent that it is necessary for him to take
\n     imme-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
560<\/span><\/p>\n
     diate action,  to take  such action  or  to  give\tsuch
\n     direction in the matter as he deems necessary”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      x\t\t    x\t\t   x\t     x
\n     Section 46\t confers power\ton  the\t President  to\tmake
\nrules: (a)  for the allocation of business to the Ministers;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
and (b) for the more convenient transaction of business with
\nthe Ministers  including the  procedure to be adopted in the
\ncase of\t difference of opinion between the Administrator and
\nthe Council  of Ministers  or a\t Minister.  Sub-section\t (2)
\nprovides that  save as\totherwise provided  in the  Act, all
\nexecutive action  of the Administrator, whether taken on the
\nadvice of  his Ministers or otherwise, shall be expressed to
\nbe taken in the name of the Administrator. The contention is
\nthat the  Administrator of  the\t Union\tTerritory  appointed
\nunder Article 239 of the Constitution by the President is in
\nthe same  position  as\tthe  Governor  of  a  State  or\t the
\nPresident of  India in\tthe matter of discharge of executive
\nfunctions conferred  upon him  and he must act on the advice
\nof the\tCouncil of  Ministers. It  was\taccordingly  further
\nsubmitted that\tthe Administrator  cannot act on his own and
\nin this case it is claimed on behalf of the Administrator in
\nthe affidavit  that he\tcan act\t on his own as stated above.
\nReliance was  placed on\t Shamsher Singh\t Anr.  v.  State  of
\nPunjab (where  in it  was held\tthat the  President  or\t the
\nGovernor acts  on the  aid and\tadvice\tof  the\t Council  of
\nMinisters with the Prime Minister at the head in the case of
\nthe Union  and the Chief Minister at the head in the case of
\na State\t in all\t matters which vest in the executive whether
\nthose functions\t are executive\tor legislative in character.
\nIt was\tfurther held  that neither  the\t President  nor\t the
\nGovernor is  to exercise the executive functions personally.
\nIt is not possible to accept this submission.\n<\/p>\n
     Article 74\t provides that\tthere shall  be a Council of
\nMinisters with\tthe Prime  Minister at\tthe head  to aid and
\nadvise the  President who  shall, in  the  exercise  of\t his
\nfunctions, act\tin accordance  with such advice. The proviso
\nto the\tArticle is  not\t material.  Similarly,\tArticle\t 163
\nprovides that there shall be a Council of Ministers with the
\nChief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in
\nthe exercise  of his functions, except in so far as he is by
\nor  under   this  Constitution\t required  to  exercise\t his
\nfunctions or any of them in his
\n561<\/span>
\ndiscretion. Once  we compare the language of Articles 74 and
\n163 with  the  language\t of  Section  44  of  the  Act,\t the
\ndifference between  the position  of the  President and\t the
\nGovernor on  the one hand and the Administrator of the Union
\nterritory  on\tthe  other   becomes  manifest.\t  The  first
\ndifference  is\tthat  he  is  similarly\t situated  with\t the
\nGovernor but not with the President when he is to act in his
\ndiscretion under  the Act. Further, the Administrator has to
\nact on\this own\t unaided by the Council of Ministers when he
\nis to exercise any judicial or quasi judicial functions. The
\nnearest analogy\t to this  provision is\tone to\tbe found  in
\nArticle 217  (3) when the President has to determine the age
\nof a  Judge of\ttho High  Court. It has been held that while
\nexercising the\tpower conferred\t by  Article  217  (3),\t the
\nPresident discharges a judicial function and is not required
\nto act\ton the\tadvice of the Council of Ministers, his only
\nobligation being to decide the question about the age of the
\nJudge after consulting the Chief Justice of India (see Union
\nof India  v. J.P.  Mitter. But\tthe<\/a>re the  analogy ends. The
\nAdministrator even  in matters\twhere he  is not required to
\nact in\this discretion\tunder the  Act or  where he  is\t not
\nexercising any\tjudicial or quasi judicial functions, is not
\nbound to  act according\t to the\t advice of  the\t Council  of
\nMinisters. This becomes manifest from the proviso to Section
\n44 (1).\t It transpires from the proviso that in the event of
\na difference  of opinion  between the  Administrator and his
\nMinisters on  any matter,  the Administrator shall refer the
\nmatter to  the President  for decision\tand act according to
\nthe  decision\tgiven  thereon\tby  the\t President.  If\t the
\nPresident  in\ta  given  situation  agrees  with  what\t the
\nAdministrator opines  contrary to  the advice of the Council
\nof Ministers,  the Administrator  would be  able to override
\nthe advice of the Council of Ministers and on a reference to
\nthe President  under the  proviso, obviously  the  President
\nwould  not  according  to  the\tadvice\tof  the\t Council  of
\nMinisters given\t under Article\t74. Virtually, therefore, in
\nthe event  of a difference of opinion between the Council of
\nMinisters of  the Union territory and the Administrator, the
\nright to  decide would\tvest in the Union Government and the
\nCouncil of  Ministers of  the Union territory would be bound
\nby the\tview taken  be the  Union Government.  Further,\t the
\nAdministrator  enjoys  still  some  more  power\t to  act  in
\nderogation of the advice of the Council of Ministers.\n<\/p>\n
562<\/span><\/p>\n
     The second\t limb of  the  proviso\tto  Section  44\t (1)
\nenables the  Administrator that in the event of a difference
\nof opinion between him and the Council of Ministers not only
\nhe can\trefer the  matter to  the President  but during\t the
\ninterregnum where  the matter  is in  his opinion  so urgent
\nthat it\t is necessary  for him\tto take immediate action, he
\nhas the power to take such action or to give such directions
\nin the\tmatter as he deems necessary. In other words, during
\nthe interregnum he can completely override the advice of the
\nCouncil of Ministers and act according to his light. Neither
\nthe Governor  nor the  President enjoys any such power. This
\nbasic functional  difference  in  the  powers  and  position
\nenjoyed by  the Governor  and the  President on the one hand
\nand the\t Administrator on the other is so glaring that it is
\nnot possible  to hold on the analogy of the\t decision in
\nShamsher Singh’s  case that  the Administrator\tis purely  a
\nconstitutional functionary bound to act on the advice of the
\nCouncil of  Ministers and  cannot act on his own. Therefore,
\nfor this  additional  reason  also  the\t submission  of\t Mr.
\nJethmalani must be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     7. The  second submission of learned counsel was to the
\neffect\tthat  the  statements  of  labourers  Tulsibhai\t and
\nMangalbhai of  30th June, 1981, being the earlier statements
\nof the\ttwo labourers  were not\t supplied to  the detenu but
\nonly the  two statements  of 1st  July, 1981,  were supplied
\nand, therefore,\t the detenu  was prevented  from  making  an
\neffective representation  by which  he wanted  to controvert
\nthe statements\tof Tulsibhai  and Mangalbhai. The submission
\nwas that  in their  statements recorded\t on 1st\t July, 1981,
\nthey did  not state that during the earlier interrogation on
\nthe night  of 30th  June, ]981,\t they informed\tthe  Customs
\nauthorities that  they were  employed as  labourers  by\t the
\ndetenu and  Lalubhai Govan.  Consequently, it was contended,
\nthe detaining  authority had no material from which to infer
\nthat on\t being first  accosted by  the customs squad the two
\nlabourers gave\tout that  they were engaged in this unlawful
\nactivity as  wage earners by the detenu and Lallu Govan. The
\nsubmission has\tno merit  because there\t are two statements,
\none of\tCustoms Inspector,  Mr.\t Patel,\t and  the  other  of
\nCustoms officer,  Mr. Fitter,  both of\twhich show  that  on
\nbeing interrogated  during the night of 30th June, 1981, the
\naforementioned two labourers gave out that they were engaged
\nfor unloading  packages containing contraband goods from the
\ngrounded vessel\t to a  house in Nani Daman by the detenu and
\nLallu Govan;  and there is no dispute that the statements of
\nMr. Patel and Mr. Fitter were given
\n563<\/span>
\nto the\tdetenu. Further, the grievance made by the detenu is
\nnot warranted  by the  materials  on  record.  For,  in\t the
\npenultimate paragraph  of the  grounds of  detention, it was
\nstated, “copies\t of the statements and other documents which
\nhave  been   taken  into   consideration  by  the  detaining
\nauthority are  also enclosed  as  per  the  index  attached”
\n(underline mine).  Thereafter, no  grievance appears to have
\nbeen made by the detenu in his representation. Even from the
\ngrounds in  the Writ  Petition, it  does  not  appear  which
\ndocuments, if  any, were  not supplied\tto the\tdetenu.\t The
\nrecords show that there was great tension on the date at the
\nplace of apprehension and as such no statements could be and
\nwere recorded  on the date of apprehension, but subsequently
\nrecorded on  2nd July, 1981. The submission therefore has no
\nsubstance.\n<\/p>\n
     8. The  third submission  of learned  counsel is, “that
\nthe  order  of\tdetention  was\tnot  properly  served”.\t The
\nsubmission is that the Gujarati translation of the order was
\nnot  supplied  to  the\tdetenu.\t According  to\tthe  learned
\ncounsel, “the  petitioner does\tnot know and cannot speak or
\nwrite in  a language  other than Gujarati, and that Annexure
\n‘A’  ought  to\thave  been  translated\tinto  Gujarati.\t The
\npetitioner was\tthereby deprived of an opportunity of making
\nan effective  representation  against  his  detention”.\t The
\nsubmission is  not wholly  correct on facts. Annexure ‘A’ is
\nthe ‘ORDER’  expressed in  terms  of  Section  3(1)  of\t the
\nCOFEPOSA. It is in English and reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “SECRET
\n     No. 14\/3\/80\/HD (G)
\n     Administrator of Goa,
\n     Daman & Diu, Cabo Raj Niwas,
\n     Caranzalem (P.O.)
\n     Goa.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t   ORDER
\n\t  WHEREAS, I,  Jagmohan, Administrator of Goa, Daman
\n     and Diu, am satisfied with respect- to the person known
\n     as Shri  Devji Vallabhbhai\t Tandel alias Devji Boss son
\n     of Shri  Vallabhbhai Tandel  residing at  H.No.  1\/255,
\n     Fenta Sheri,  Vadi Falia,\tNani Daman, that with a view
\n     to preventing him from smuggling goods.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
564<\/span><\/p>\n
It is necessary to make the following order:\n<\/p>\n
     Now, therefore,  in exercise of the powers conferred by
\nsection 3  (1) of  the Conservation  of Foreign Exchange and
\nPrevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974;\n<\/p>\n
     I, Jagmohan, Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu direct
\nthat the  said Shri  Devji Vallabhbhai Tandel be detained at
\nthe Central  Jail,  Aguada,  and  the  enclosed\t grounds  of
\ndetention be served on him.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    SEAL
\nPlace :-Cabo Raj Niwas
\nDate  :-11.9.81
\nEncl  : As above
\n     Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
     (Jagmohan)
\n     Administrator of Goa, Daman
\n     and Diu.\n<\/p>\n
To
\n     Shri Devji Vallabhbhai Tandel
\n     alias Devji Boss,
\n     H. No. 11255, Fenta Sheri,
\n     Vadi Falia, Nani Daman”\n<\/p>\n
     Admittedly, this  ‘ORDER’ as  per Annexure\t ‘A’ was  in
\nEnglish but  the enclosure,  Annexure ‘B’ which contains the
\ngrounds of  detention together\twith the  materials on which
\nthe grounds  were based\t was in\t Gujarati. In paragraph 8 of
\nthe counter-affidavit  filed on behalf of the Administrator,
\nit has been stated:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “As regards Ground it is denied that the detaining
\n     authority has  not furnished  Gujarati version  of\t the
\n     order of  detention as alleged by the petitioner… The
\n     petitioner by his own admission knows Gujarati and
\n565<\/span>
\n     accordingly  the\tgrounds\t of   detention\t have\tbeen
\n     communicated to  the petitioner  in Gujarati  language.
\n     The allegation is, therefore, untenable”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The above\tstatement of  the respondent is supported by
\nthe internal  evidence of  Annuexure ‘B’ itself. For, in the
\npenultimate paragraph of the “grounds” it bas been stated:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The Gujarati\t version of the grounds of detention
\n     is enclosed to enable you to understand the grounds for
\n     which detention order is passed against you”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This shows\t that the Gujarati version of the grounds as
\nper Annexure  ‘B’ was sent to the detenu alongwith the ORDER
\nas per\tAnnexure ‘A’.  Admittedly, the\tdetenu is a Gujarati
\nspeaking person.\n<\/p>\n
     So far as the non-supply of the Gujarati version of the
\nORDER as  per Annexure\t‘A’ is\tconcerned, in  our  opinion,
\nthere has  been no  violation of Article 22 (5) or any other
\nlaw. The ORDER as per Annexure ‘A’ was a mere formal recital
\nof section  3 (1)  of the COFEPOSA, showing the provision of
\nlaw under  which the  order  of\t detention  has\t been  made.
\nAlthough, the section of the COFEPOSA has not been mentioned
\nin the last but two paragraphs of the “grounds”, it has been
\nstated that  the detenu\t engaged himself “in smuggling goods
\nand that  there is  sufficient cause to pass detention order
\nagainst you  with a  view to  preventing you  from smuggling
\ngoods”, which  was in  Gujarati. It  cannot, therefore,\t be.
\nsaid  that   the  detenu  was  in  any\tway  handicapped  in
\nsubmitting  his\t  representation,  or  there  has  been\t any
\nviolation of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     9.\t The  learned  counsel,\t in  support  of  his  third
\nsubmission, cited  before us  the decision  of this Court in
\nthe case of The State Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya. The<\/a>
\ndecision is beside the point and need not be referred to.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned Counsel  for the  petitioner also cited another
\ndecision of  this Court reported in (1980) 4 SCC 427 In that
\ncase, it has been held that failure to supply the grounds of
\ndetention in  the language understood by the detenu violates
\nArticle 22  (5) of the Constitution. In the instant case? as
\nwe have found above, the
\n566<\/span>
\nGujarati translation  of the  grounds was  supplied  to\t the
\ndetenu. The  decision cited  has not  held  that  the  ORDER
\nexpressed in  terms of\tSection 3  (1) of  the COFEPOSA must
\nalso be\t in the language understood by the detenu. Section 3
\n(1) as\tstated above  merely gives power of detention to the
\ndetaining authority. This submission also has no substance.\n<\/p>\n
     10. The  fourth submission\t of learned counsel was that
\nby a  telegram dated 1st October, 1981, the detenu requested
\nfor an\timmediate  thearing  through  his  lawyer  but\tthis
\nrequest was  denied. There  was\t a  delay  of  six  days  in
\ndeciding the  matter. This  was contrary to law. That apart,
\nthe “respondent\t misled the detenu by indicating to him that
\nthe only  way by  which the Administrator could be persuaded
\nwould be  a representation  through the\t jail”. The  factual
\npart of the submission is not correct. On 1st October, 1981,
\none Shri  Thaku Ajwani,\t Advocate for the petitioner, sent a
\ntelegram to  the Administrator.\t It  was  in  the  following
\nterms:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t“JAGMOHAN
\n\t\t\t\t\tADMINISTRATOR OF GOA
\n\t\t\t\t\tDAMAN & DIU
\n\t\t\t\t\tCABO RAJ NIWAS
\n\t\t\t\t\tCARANZALER, GOA
\nORDINARY
\nDETENUS DEVJI  VALLABHBHAI TANDEL AND NARSINBHAI DURLABHBHAI
\nTANDEL DETAINED\t UNDER COFEPOSA\t ORDERS DATED 11TH SEPTEMBER
\n1981 HAVE  INSTRUCTED ME  TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU AND REPRESENT
\nTHEIR CASE  FOR\t REVOKING  DETENTION  ORDERS  (Stop)  KINDLY
\nINTIMATE FORTHWITH DATE, TIME AND PLACE
\n\t\t\t      THAKU AJWANI ADVOCATE 22
\n\t\t\t      PANCHSHILA ROAD CHURCHGATE
\n\t\t\t      BOMBAY 400 020
\n567<\/span>
\n     There was\ta reply\t telegram by  the Chief Secretary of
\nthe Union  Territory in question. The post copy of the reply
\ntelegram reads thus: (material portions only):\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “STATE\t\t TELEGRAM\t     EXPRESS
\n     ADVOCATE SHRI THAKU AJWANI
\n     CHAMBERS C\/O RAM JETHMALANI
\n     ADVOCATE SUPREME COURT
\n     22 PANCHSHILA ROAD,
\n     CHURCHGATE, BOMBAY-400 020
\n     . ..  . .. No. 14\/3\/80\/HD (G) (.) REFERENCE YOUR LETTER
\n     DATED 1ST OCTOBER 1981 REGARDING DETENTION OF SARVASHRI
\n     DEVJI  VALLABHBHAI\t TANDEL\t AND  NARSINBHAI  DURLABBHAI
\n     TANDEL DETAINED  UNDER COFEPOSA  ACT  RECEIVED  IN\t THE
\n     OFFICE OF\tTHE ADMINISTRATOR  ON  5\/10\/1981  (.)  “YOUR
\n     TELEGRAM DATED  1ST OCTOBER  1981 REFERRED\t THERElN HAD
\n     BEEN REPLIED  UNDER THIS  DEPARTMENT’S TELEGRAM OF EVEN
\n     NUMBER DATED  6TH OCTOBER 1981 AND ITS COPIES HAVE ALSO
\n     BEEN SENT\tTo THE\tCONCERNED DETENUS  AT  CENTRAL\tJAIL
\n     AGUADA (.) CONTENTS OF THE SAID TELEGRAM ARE REPRODUCED
\n     BELOW (.)\tQUOTE (.)  YOUR TELEGRAM  DATED 1ST  OCTOBER
\n     1981 ADDRESSED  TO THE  ADMINISTRATOR GOA DAMAN AND DIU
\n     REGARDING\tDETENTION  OF  SARVASHRI  DEVJI\t VALLABHBHAI
\n     TANDEL AND NARSINBHAI DURLABHBHAI TANDEL DETAINED UNDER
\n     COFEPOSA ACT (.) YOUR REQUEST FOR APPEARANCE BEFORE THE
\n     ADMINISTRATOR AND\tREPRESENT THE  CASE OF THE AFORESAID
\n     DETENUS  HAS   BEEN   CAREFULLY   CONSIDERED   BY\t THE
\n     ADMINISTRATOR AND\tHE HAS\tDECIDED THAT THE DETENUS CAN
\n     MAKE
\n568<\/span>
\n     REPRESENTATION TO\tTHE  ADMINISTRATOR  THROUGH  CENTRAL
\n     JAIL  AGUADA   WHERE  THEY\t  ARE\tDETAINED   (.)\t THE
\n     REPRESENTATION OF\tTHE AFORESAID  DETENUS WILL  RECEIVE
\n     HIS DUE CONSIDERATION AS AND WHEN THEY ARE RECEIVED (.)
\n     UNQUOTE (.)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     -CHIEF SEC-“<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It has  been stated  in  paragraph\t 9  of\tthe  counter
\naffidavit as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “…………………… ,  it is  admitted\tthat
\n     the telegram dated 1st October, 1981, purported to have
\n     been made\tby the\tAdvocate  on  behalf  of  petitioner
\n     requesting the  Administrator  for\t grant\tof  personal
\n     appearance before him for revocation of detention order
\n     was received  in the office of the Administrator on 3rd
\n     October, 1981.  This request  was duly  examined and it
\n     was felt that under the law, the detenu is not entitled
\n     to be  represented by  an Advocate\t and  the  Detaining
\n     Authority is not legally bound to grant the prayer made
\n     on behalf of the detenu. The Advocate of the petitioner
\n     was telegraphically  informed on  6th October 1981 that
\n     the request  had been  duly considered  by the Adminis-
\n     trator who\t had decided  that the\tdetenu could  make a
\n     representation  to\t  the  Administrator   through\t the
\n     Superintendent, Central  Jail,  Aguada,  where  he\t was
\n     detained and  that\t the  same  would  receive  his\t due
\n     consideration as  and when\t it was\t received. A copy of
\n     the  said\ttelegram  sent\tto  the\t Advocate  was\talso
\n     endorsed to the detenu and the same was received by him
\n     on 7th  October, 1981.  A letter in confirmation of the
\n     Advocate’s telegram  was received\tfrom the Advocate of
\n     the petitioner  in the  office of\tthe Administrator on
\n     5.10.1981 and  the same  was replied to telegraphically
\n     on 7th  October, 1981, reiterating the earlier position
\n     as conveyed in the said telegram of 6th October.
\n\t  The allegation  that 10  days were  taken  by\t the
\n     respondent in  only deciding  the representation and in
\n     coming to\tthe conclusion\tthat he\t would not  permit a
\n     lawyer to plead
\n569<\/span>
\n     for revocation of the order of detention is, therefore,
\n     not   correct. To give further details, the telegram of
\n     the  petitioner’s\t Advocate  was\t received   in\t the
\n     Administrator’s office  on 3rd  October, 1981,  and was
\n     sent to the Joint Secretary (Home) the same day. It was
\n     referred to  the law  Department on  3rd October,\t1981
\n     itself and\t through  usual\t channels  reached  the\t Law
\n     Secretary on  5th October,\t 1981, the  4th\t of  October
\n     being a  Sunday. The Law Secretary gave his opinion and
\n     referred the  telegram to\tthe Home  Department on\t the
\n     same day i.e. 5th October, 1981. In the Home Department
\n     it was  sent by the Under Secretary (Home) to the Chief
\n     Secretary and  by the  latter to the Chief Minister the
\n     same day.\tOn 6th October, 1981, it was examined by the
\n     Lt. Governor  and the  reply was sent to the petitioner
\n     on\t the  same  day.  The  reply  was  received  by\t the
\n     petitioner\/detenu on 7th October, 1981″.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In addition  to the above explanation of the respondent
\nin para\t 9 of the counter-affidavit, we perused the file and
\nwe are satisfied that there was no delay in disposal. On the
\ncontrary, it may be said to the credit of the administration
\nthat it was dealing with the matter with utmost promptitude.\n<\/p>\n
     11. Now  to examine  the  second  part  of\t the  fourth
\ncontention of  learned counsel.\t His submission\t is that the
\nAdministrator committed\t an illegality\tnot only by refusing
\nthe detenu  to be  heard through a lawyer, but, in addition,
\nby misleading  the detenu  by  his  telegram.  The  detenu’s
\ncounsel, Mr.  Ajwani, informed\tthe Administrator  that\t the
\ndetenu had  instructed him  to represent his case before the
\nAdministrator. He made a request to the Administrator to let
\nhim know  the date,  time and place of his appearance before
\nthe Administrator The reply telegram quoted above has stated
\nthat his  request has  been  “carefully\t considered  by\t the
\nAdministrator” who,  by implication,  rejected the  request.
\nBesides, it  was further  stated in  the telegram  that\t the
\nAdministrator  has   decided  that   the  detenu   can\tmake
\nrepresentation to  the Administrator  through the jailor and
\nthat the  representation so sent would be duly considered by
\nthe Administrator  to which  exception has  been  taken.  In
\nthese circumstances, the following questions arise:\n<\/p>\n
     (1)  whether the  detenu has  a right  to appear before
\n\t  the detaining authority through a lawyer;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
570<\/span><\/p>\n
     (2)  whether the  last sentence  in  the  telegram\t has
\n\t  misled the detenu.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Mr. Jethmalani  submits that Article 22 (3) enables the
\nlegislature to\ttake away  the common  law right  of  acting
\nthrough an  agent generally or through a particular class of
\nagents. The  statute does Dot deal with the general but with
\na particular  class, namely,  the legal\t practitioners.\t The
\nstatute\t confines   this  legal\t disability  to\t the  matter
\nconnected with\treference  to  the  Advisory  Board.  So  he
\nsubmits\t that  lawyers\tare  not  completely  sought  to  be
\nexcluded. Under\t Article 22  counsel submits  there are\t two
\ndistinct  and\tindependent  rights:  (1)  to  persuade\t the
\ndetaining authority to revoke the order of detention and (2)
\nto persuade  the Advisory Board to disapprove the detention.
\nIt is  only in\tthe second  process that  the  agent  called
\nlawyer is excluded. The learned counsel further submits that
\nevery person  has a  common law right to employ an agent and
\ndo an  act through him. The detenu could, therefore, send an
\n‘agent’ or a ‘friend’ who might have been his lawyer.\n<\/p>\n
     Let us  first examine whether the detenu has a right to
\nappear through a lawyer. This examination need not detain us
\nlong.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 8\t(e) of the COFEPOSA reads: (material portion
\n     only)
\n\t  “For the  purposes of sub-clause (a) of clause (4)
\n     and sub-clause  (c) of clause (7), of Article 22 of the
\n     Constitution,-(e)-a person\t against whom  an  order  of
\n     detention has  been made  under this  Act shall  not be
\n     entitled to  appear by  any legal\tpractitioner in\t any
\n     matter connected  with the\t reference to  the  Advisory
\n     Board..” (emphasis added).\n<\/p>\n
     Clause (e)\t in express  terms disentitles the detenu to
\nappear through\ta legal practitioner in any matter connected
\nwith the reference to the Advisory Board. It is indisputable
\nthat  a\t  detention  matter  which  is\tpending\t before\t the
\nAdministrator is  undoubtedly a\t matter connected  with\t the
\nreference to  the Advisory Board. The detenu, therefore, has
\nno right  to appear before the detaining authority or before
\nthe Advisory Board by a legal practitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     This Court in the case of Smt. Hemlata Kantilal Shah v.
\nThe State of Maharashtra & Anr.<\/a> have held;\n<\/p>\n
571<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “Section 8  (e) has not barred representation of a
\n     detenu by\ta lawyer.  It only lays down that the detenu
\n     cannot claim representation by a lawyer as of right. It
\n     has given\tthe Board  a discretion\t to permit or not to
\n     permit  representation   of  the\tdetenu\tby   counsel
\n     according to the necessity in a particular case”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the  case of  A.K Roy v. Union of India relied on by
\nMr. Jethmalani, a Constitution Bench of this Court has held.\n<\/p>\n
\t  “First and  foremost, we must consider whether and
\n     to what  extent the  detenu is entitled to exercise the
\n     trinity of\t rights before\tthe Advisory  Board; (i) the
\n     right of legal representation; (ii) the right of cross-
\n     examination and (iii) the right to present his evidence
\n     in rebuttal.  These rights\t undoubtedly constitute\t the
\n     core of  just process because without them, it would be
\n     difficult for  any person\tto disprove  the allegations
\n     made against  him and to establish the truth. But there
\n     are two considerations of primary importance which must
\n     be borne in mind in this regard. There is no prescribed
\n     standard of  reasonableness and therefore, what kind of
\n     processual rights\tshould be made available to a person
\n     in any  proceeding\t depends  upon\tthe  nature  of\t the
\n     proceedings  in   relation\t to  which  the\t rights\t are
\n     claimed. The  kind of issues involved in the proceeding
\n     determine the  kind of  rights available to the persons
\n     who  are  parties\tto  that  proceeding.  Secondly\t the
\n     question as  to the  availability of  rights has  to be
\n     decided not generally but on the basis of the statutory
\n     provisions which  govern the  proceeding,\tprovided  of
\n     course that those provisions are valid.. ” (para 84)
\n\t  ‘Turning   first    to   the\t  right\t  of   legal
\n     representation which is claimed by the petitioners, the
\n     relevant article  of the  Constitution to\tconsider  is
\n     Article 22\t which bears  the marginal  note “protection
\n     against arrest  and detention  in certain\tcases”. That
\n     article provides  by clause  (1) that  no person who is
\n     arrested shall  be detained  in custody  without  being
\n     informed, as  soon as  may be,  of the grounds for such
\n     arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and
\n572<\/span>
\n     to be  defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.
\n     Clause (2)\t requires that\tevery person who is arrested
\n     and detained  in custody  shall be\t produced before the
\n     nearest magistrate\t within a period of 24 hours of such
\n     arrest and\t that no person shall be detained in custody
\n     beyond the\t said period  without  the  authority  of  a
\n     magistrate. Clause (3) provides that nothing in clauses
\n     (1) and  (2) shall\t apply (a) to any person who for the
\n     time being\t is an enemy alien; or (b) to any person who
\n     is arrested  or detained  under any  law providing\t for
\n     preventive detention.  It may  be recalled\t that clause
\n     (4)  (a)\tof  Article  22\t provides  that\t no  law  of
\n     preventive detention shall authorise the detention of a
\n     person for a period longer than three months unless the
\n     Advisory Board  has reported  before the  expiry of the
\n     said period  of three  months  that  there\t is  in\t its
\n     opinion sufficient\t cause for such detention. By clause
\n     (7) (c)  of Article  22, the  Parliament is  given\t the
\n     power to  prescribe by law the procedure to be followed
\n     by the  Advisory Board  in an  inquiry under clause (4)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)”. (para 85)
\n\t  “On a\t combined reading of clauses (1) and (3) (b)
\n     of Article\t 22, it\t is clear  that the right to consult
\n     and to  be defended  by a\tlegal practitioner  of one’s
\n     choice, which  is conferred by clause (1), is denied by
\n     clause 3  (b) to a person who is detained under any law
\n     providing for  preventive detention. Thus, according to
\n     the express  intendment of\t the Constitution itself, no
\n     person who\t is detained  under any\t law, which provides
\n     for  preventive  detention,  can  claim  the  right  to
\n     consult a\tlegal practitioner  of his  choice or  to be
\n     defended by  him. In  view of  this,  it  seems  to  us
\n     difficult to  hold, by application of abstract, general
\n     principles or  on\ta  priori  considerations  that\t the
\n     detenu has\t the right  of being  represented by a legal
\n     practitioner in  the proceedings  before  the  Advisory
\n     Board.. lt is indeed true to say, after the decision in
\n     the Bank  Nationalisation case, that though the subject
\n     of preventive  detention is  specifically dealt with in
\n     Article  22,   the\t requirements  of  Article  21\thave
\n     nevertheless to be satisfied. It is therefore necessary
\n     that  the\t procedure  prescribed\t by  law   for\t the
\n     proceedings before\t the Advisory  Boards must  be fair,
\n     just and  reasonable. But then, the Constitution itself
\n     has provided a yardstick for
\n573<\/span>
\n     the application of that standard, through the medium of
\n     the  provisions   contained  in  Article  22  (3)\t(b).
\n     Howsoever much  we would  have liked to hold otherwise,
\n     we experience  serious difficulty\tin taking  the\tview
\n     that the  procedure of the Advisory Boards in which the
\n     detenu is\tdenied the  right of legal representation is
\n     unfair, unjust  or unreasonable.  If  article  22\twere
\n     silent  on\t  the  question,   of  the  right  of  legal
\n     representation, it\t would have  been  possible,  indeed
\n     right and\tproper, to  hold that  the detenu  cannot be
\n     denied  the   right  of  legal  representation  in\t the
\n     proceedings  before   the\tAdvisory   Boards.   It\t  is
\n     unfortunate that  courts have  been  deprived  of\tthat
\n     choice by\tthe express  language of  Article 22 (3) (b)
\n     read with Article 22 (1)”. (para 86).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “To read  the right  of  legal  representation  in
\n     Article 22\t (S)  is  straining  the  language  of\tthat
\n     article. Clause  (S) confers  upon the detenu the right
\n     to be  informed of\t the 1) grounds of detention and the
\n     right to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making
\n     a representation  against the  order of detention. That
\n     right has\tundoubtedly to be effective, but it does not
\n     carry with\t it the\t right to  be represented by a legal
\n     practitioner before  the Advisory Board merely because,
\n     by\t Section  10  of  the  National\t Security  Act,\t the
\n     representation made  by the  detenu is  required to  be
\n     forwarded to the. Advisory Board for its consideration.
\n     If anything,  the effect  of Section  11(4) of the Act,
\n     which conforms  to Article\t 22 (3)\t (b),  is  that\t the
\n     detenu cannot  appear before the Advisory Board through
\n     a legal practitioner. The written representation of the
\n     detenu does  not have  to be expatiated upon by a legal
\n     practitioner”. (para 88)
\n\t  “We must  therefore hold, regretfully though, that
\n     the detenu\t has no\t right to  appear  through  a  legal
\n     practitioner in  the proceedings  before  the  Advisory
\n     Board. It\tis, however,  necessary to  add an important
\n     caveat. The  reason behind\t the provisions contained in
\n     Article 22\t (3) (b) of the Constitution clearly is that
\n     a legal  practitioner should not be permitted to appear
\n     before the\t Advisory Board\t for any  party,……..  “.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (para 93) (underlines added)
\n574<\/span>
\n     What has  been  said  above  about\t appearance  through
\nlawyer before the Advisory Board under the National Security
\nAct  equally  apply  to\t appearance  by\t lawyer\t before\t the
\nAdvisory Board under COFEPOSA.\n<\/p>\n
     With regard to appearance through a ‘friend’, the Court
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Another aspect  of this  matter which needs to be
\n     mentioned is  that the  embargo on\t the  appearance  of
\n     legal a  practitioners should  not be extended so as to
\n     prevent the  detenu from  being aided  or assisted by a
\n     friend who,  in truth  and substance,  is not  a  legal
\n     practitioner.  Every   person   whose   interests\t are
\n     adversely affected as a result of the proceedings which
\n     have a serious import, is entitled to be heard in those
\n     proceedings and be assisted by a friend.
\n     …………… “. (para 94) (emphasis added).
\n     But the Court observed:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “The appearance  of the legal practitioners should
\n     not be  extended so as to prevent the detenu from being
\n     aided or  assisted\t by  a\tfriend\twho,  in  truth\t and
\n     substance, is  not\t a  legal  practitioner.”  (emphasis
\n     added).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In other words, a ‘friend’ who, in truth and substance,
\nis a  friend of\t the detenu may appear for the detenu but if
\nsuch a\t‘friend’ also happens to be a legal practitioner, he
\ncannot, as  of right,  appear before  the Advisory  Board on
\nbehalf of the detenu.\n<\/p>\n
     12. The  same reasoning  will apply to appearance by an
\n‘agent’. In  other words,  if an  ‘agent’ is  in ‘truth\t and
\nsubstance’ an  agent, the detenu may appear through him. But
\nif the ‘agent’ Is a legal practitioner, appearance by him as
\nof right will be barred. But a ‘friend’ or an ‘agent’ of the
\ndetenu who is essentially a comrade in the profession of the
\ndetenu for  which he is detained, such a ‘friend’ or ‘agent’
\nwill also be barred from appearance on behalf of the detenu.\n<\/p>\n
575<\/span><\/p>\n
     In passing\t it must be stated that a man has a right to
\nappoint an  agent. One\tmay call  it a common law right. But
\nthere is  no obligation\t on the\t other side to deal with the
\nagent. The  other side\thas an equal right to refuse to deal
\nwith an\t agent. In any view of the matter, in the absence of
\nany right  to give  an oral  hearing in the form of making a
\nrepresentation under Article 22 (5), the question of hearing
\na legal practitioner on behalf of the detenu does not arise.
\nIt cannot,  therefore, be  said that  refusal to  hear.\t Mr.
\nAjwani,\t advocate   engaged   by   the’\t  detenu,   by\t the
\nAdministrator has resulted in denial of constitutional right
\nto make a representation.\n<\/p>\n
     That apart,  in this  case, the  case, the\t telegram in
\nexpress terms  has described the sender, Thaku Ajwani, as an
\nadvocate, who  in  clear  terms\t stated\t that  he  had\tbeen
\ninstructed by  the detenu  to appear  before  the  detaining
\nauthority to  represent the  case of  the detenu.  In  other
\nwords, Mr.  Ajwani clearly  told the  Administrator that the
\ndetenu was  his client\tand that  he himself was his counsel
\nand that  he desired  to represent the case of the detenu in
\nhis capacity  as a  legal practitioner. The telegram was not
\nsent by\t Mr. Ajwani telling the Administrator that he wanted
\nto appear  before the  Administrator as\t a  ‘friend’  or  an
\n‘agent’ of  the detenu\tin order  to represent his case. It,
\ntherefore, cannot  be said  that the Administrator refused a
\n‘friend’ or an ‘agent’ of the detenu to appear before him to
\nassist the detenu.\n<\/p>\n
     13 Article\t 22 (1)\t and (2) confer fundamental right of
\nprotection against  arrest and\tdetention in  certain cases.
\nSub-Article (1)\t enjoins a  duty on the person arresting any
\nperson to  inform the person arrested, as soon as may be, of
\nthe grounds  for such arrest before detaining him in custody
\nand such  detained person  shall not  be denied the right to
\nconsult and  to be  defended by a legal practitioner, of his
\nchoice.\t Sub-Article  (2)  enjoins  a  duty  on\t the  person
\narresting and  detaining any  one to  produce him before the
\nnearest Magistrate  within a  period of\t 24  hours  of\tsuch
\narrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the
\nplace of  arrest to  the Court of the Magistrate and no such
\nperson shall  be detained  in custody beyond the said period
\nwithout the authority of a magistrate. These two fundamental
\nrights, namely,\t right to  be informed\tof  the\t grounds  of
\ndetention at the time of arrest and the right to consult and
\nbe defended  by a  lawyer of  his choice,  and any detention
\nbeyond the period of 24 hours plus the time taken in the
\n576<\/span>
\njourney, unless\t authorised by\ta magistrate  to be  illegal
\nwould have also been available to any one detained under the
\npreventive detention  laws but\tfor  sub-Article  (3).\tSub-
\nArticle (3)  provides that  nothing in\tclauses (1)  and (2)
\nshall apply  (a) to  any person who for the time being is an
\nenemy alien;  or (b)  to  any  person  who  is\tarrested  or
\ndetained under\tany law\t providing for preventive detention.
\nAs a  necessary corollary,  any law providing for preventive
\ndetention  would   not\tbe   unconstitutional  even   if  it
\ncontravenes Article 22 (1) and (2). In other words, a person
\ndetained under\ta law  providing  for  preventive  detention
\ncannot claim  as a matter of constitutional right to consult
\nand be defended by a lawyer of his choice. Nor can he insist
\nupon being  produced before  a magistrate within 24 hours of
\nhis arrest.\n<\/p>\n
     14. Section  8 of\tthe COFEPOSA  soows as noticed above
\nthat a\tperson against\twhom an\t order of detention has been
\nmade under  the Act  shall not\tbe entitled to appear by any
\nlegal  practitioner   in  any\tmatter\tconnected  with\t the
\nreference to  the Advisory Board. Assuming that the right to
\nmake a\trepresentation and the corresponding obligation cast
\non the\tdetaining authority  to consider  the representation
\nexpeditiously is  not a\t matter connected with the reference
\nto the\tAdvisory Board and that both are independent stages,
\nit cannot  be said  that the refusal of the Administrator to
\nhear the  advocate  of\tthe  detenu  while  considering\t the
\nrepresentation would  be denial\t of common  law right of the
\ndetenu to  be represented  by an agent. Article 22 (5) which
\nhas  provided  a  safeguard  in\t the  matter  of  preventive
\ndetention confers the right on the detenu and simultaneously
\ncasts an  obligation on\t the detaining authority, as soon as
\nmay be,\t after the  arrest to  communicate to the detenu the
\ngrounds on  which the  order has been made and to afford the
\nearliest opportunity  of making a representation against the
\norder. Representation is to be made by the detenu. Detenu is
\na person  who is already deprived of his liberty. Giving the
\nordinary connotation to the expression ‘earliest opportunity
\nof making  a representation’  as set  out in sub-Article (5)
\nwould only  imply that\tthe  person  can  send\this  written
\nrepresentation through\tthe jail  authorities. It  would  be
\nopen to\t him to send it by any other communicating media but
\nthe opportunity to make a representation does not comprehend
\nan oral hearing If it does, the detenu will have to be taken
\nfrom the  jail\twhere  he  is  detained\t to  the  detaining’
\nauthority which\t in  a\tgiven  situation  may  not  even  be
\nfeasible and the delay in transit may be
\n577<\/span>
\ncounterproductive to the earliest opportunity to be afforded
\nto make a representation. It is, therefore, implicit in Sub-
\nArticle (5)  of Article 22 that the representation has to be
\na  written  representation  communicated  through  the\tjail
\nauthorities or\tthrough any  other  mode  which\t the  detenu
\nthinks fit  of adopting but the detaining authority is under
\nno obligation  to grant\t any oral  hearing at  the  time  of
\nconsidering the\t representation. Now,  if the representation
\nhas to\tbe a written representation. there is no question of
\nhearing any  one much  less a lawyer. Reliance was, however,
\nplaced on Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union
\nTerritory  of\tDelhi  &  ors.<\/a>,\t In  that  case\t the  detenu
\nchallenged the\tvalidity of clause 3 (b) (i) and (ii) of the
\nCondition of  Detention laid down by the jail administration
\nunder an  order dated  23rd August, 1975, issued in exercise
\nof the powers conferred under Section 5 of the COFEPOSA. The
\nrelevant condition was as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “3. The  conditions of  detention  in\t respect  of
\n     classification and interviews shall be as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  Interviews: Subject  to the  direction issued
\n\t       by  the\tAdministrator  from  time  to  time,
\n\t       permission for the grant of interviews with a
\n\t       detenu  shall  be  granted  by  the  District
\n\t       Magistrate, Delhi as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (i)  Interview with legal adviser:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    Interview\twith\tlegal\tadviser\t  in
\n\t\t    connection with defence of a detenu in a
\n\t\t    criminal  case  or\tin  regard  to\twrit
\n\t\t    petitions and  the like,  may be allowed
\n\t\t    by prior appointment, in the presence of
\n\t\t    an\t  officer     of     Customs\/Central
\n\t\t    Excise\/Enforcement to  be  nominated  by
\n\t\t    the local  collector of  Customs\/Central
\n\t\t    Excise or Deputy Director of Enforcement
\n\t\t    who sponsors the case for detention.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (ii) Interview with family members:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
578<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t    monthly interview  may be  permitted for
\n\t\t    members  of\t the  family  consisting  of
\n\t\t    wife, children  or parents of the detenu
\n\t\t    .. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The contention  was that  the condition in clause 3 (b)\n<\/p>\n
(ii) which restricts the interview to only one in a month in
\ncase  of   a  detenu  is  unreasonable\tand  arbitrary\twhen
\ncontrasted with\t an under-trial prisoner who was entitled to
\nthe facility  of interviews with friends and relatives twice
\nin a  week and\teven though  a detenu  stands  on  a  higher
\npedestal than  an under-trial  prisoner or  a  convict,\t the
\nlimitation of  interview  to  one  in  a  month\t is  utterly
\narbitrary. This\t contention found  favour with\tthe Court on
\nthe ground  that  restrictions\tplaced\ton  a  detenu  must,
\nconsistent with\t the effectiveness  of detention, be minimal
\n(see Sampat  Prakash v.\t State of  Jammu & Kashmir,<\/a> [1969] 3
\nS.C.R. 574.  Proceeding further,  this Court  held that sub-
\nclause (i)  of clause 3 (b) which prescribes that the detenu
\ncan have  an interview\twith a\tlegal adviser  of his choice
\nwith prior  permission of  the District\t Magistrate and\t the
\ninterview  has\t to  take   place  in\tthe  presence  of  a
\nCustoms\/Central Excise\/Enforcement  officer nominated by the
\nlocal Collector of Customs\/Central Excise\/Deputy Director of
\nEnforcement, was  unreasonable and  hence invalid. Now, this
\njudgment is  not an  authority for  the proposition  that  a
\ndetenu as  a  matter  of  right\t is  entitled  to  make\t his
\nrepresentation by  an  oral  hearing  before  the  detaining
\nauthority under\t Article 22  (5). The  right  to  consult  a
\nlawyer was granted by the conditions of detention prescribed
\nunder Section 5. This right was not spelt out as an incident
\nof Article  21 and  what  has  been  found  invalid  is\t the
\npresence of  officers at  the interview\t and the  number  of
\ninterviews. Therefore,\tFrancis Coralie Mullin’s case is not
\nan authority  for the proposition and frankly, cannot be one
\nfor the purpose of spelling out a right to be represented by
\na lawyer  while making\trepresentation before  the detaining
\nauthority. Even though there are some observations which may
\nimply such  a right, they would be completely obiter for the
\nobvious reason\tthat a right was conferred by the Conditions
\nof Detention  and not  for the\tfirst time a right was being
\nspelt out  by the  expanded horizons  of right\tto life\t and
\nliberty as  enshrined in  Article 21. The attempt to read or
\nimply  something  in  .\t Article  21,  which  is  positively
\nreflected by  Article 22  (5) would be contrary to any canon
\nof construction\t because it  is well  settled that  what  is
\nexpressly reflected cannot be brought in by the back door of
\nimplication. It\t was not necessary to spell out these rights
\nin the\tfacts of  that case  for the obvious reason that the
\nright was conferred
\n579<\/span>
\nby the conditions of detention. One need not go in search of
\nsome such  right implicit  in Article  21 by  a\t process  of
\ninterpretation\twhen   it  was\t expressly  granted  in\t the
\nConditions of  Detention  under\t the  Act.  Therefore,\twith
\nrespect, the  decision in  Mullin’s  case  cannot  help\t the
\npetitioner to  spell out right to be represented by a lawyer
\nbefore the detaining authority.\n<\/p>\n
     15. Now  the other\t aspect of  the submission,  namely;
\nwhether the  respondent misled\tthe detenu  by his telegram.
\nObjection has  been taken  to the  following sentence of the
\ntelegram:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “He (administrator)  has decided  that the detenus
\n     can make  representation to  the administrator  through
\n     Central jail, Aguada, where they are detained”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It may  be remembered that the telegram was sent to the
\ndetenus’ advocate,  Mr. Ajwani,\t and not to the detenus. The
\nabove sentence conveying an advice, albeit gratuitous, could
\nhardly mislead\ta lawyer  who is  supposed  to\tknow  how  a
\nrepresentation of  a detenu  is to  be sent to the detaining
\nauthority. The\tsubmission of  Mr. Jethmalani  was that\t the
\nsentence give the impression that the representation if sent
\nthrough the  jail only,\t and  in  no  other  way,  would  be
\nconsidered. The\t submission was hypothetical. The detenu was
\nin jail.  The representation,  of necessity,  had to be sent
\nthrough the Superintendent of the jail where he was detained
\nwith the  former’s necessary  endorsement and seal. It would
\nbe difficult  for the  detaining  authority  to\t immediately
\nascertain whether  the representation  sent  otherwise\tthan
\nthrough the  jailor was\t genuine. Even\tso the Administrator
\ndid not\t say that  the detenu’s\t representation, unless sent
\nthrough the  jail would\t be considered. There is no merit in
\nthe submission.\n<\/p>\n
     16. The  sixth point  raised by learned counsel for the
\npetitioner is  that illegalities  were committed  in dealing
\nwith the representation of the detenu in that:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “(a) the detenu was not heard.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  his advocate was not heard.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c)\the was not told that he could be represented
\n\t       by a friend.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
580<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  (d)  he was  not  permitted  cross-examination  of
\n\t       rebuttal evidence.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The submission of learned counsel has no substance.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  A perusal  of the record shows that the detenu was
\n\t  heard in  person, was\t questioned by\tthe Board on
\n\t  several points  in Gujarati which was the language
\n\t  of the  detenu, and  necessary answers elected. He
\n\t  does not  have any  right to be heard in person by
\n\t  the detaining authority.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  It is true that the advocate of the detenu was not
\n\t  heard but the former’s right to be heard either by
\n\t  the detaining\t authority or  by the Advisory Board
\n\t  has been answered above.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  The contention has been dealt with above.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d)   This Court  in A.K. Roy’s case (supra) dealt with
\n\t  the detenu’s\tplea of\t cross-examination, and\t has
\n\t  held;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “…. It  seems to  us difficult  to hold  that  a
\n     detenu can\t claim the right of cross-examination in the
\n     proceeding\t before\t  the  Advisory\t  Board.  First\t and
\n     foremost, cross  examination of  whom ?  The  principle
\n     that witnesses  must  be  confronted  and\toffered\t for
\n     cross-examination applies\tgenerally to  proceedings in
\n     which witnesses  are examined  or documents are adduced
\n     in\t evidence   in\torder\tto  prove  a  point.  Cross-
\n     examination then  becomes a powerful weapon for showing
\n     the untruthfulness\t of that  evidence.  In\t proceedings
\n     before   the   Advisory   Board,\tthe   question\t for
\n     consideration of the Board is not whether the detenu is
\n     guilty of\tany charge  but whether\t there is sufficient
\n     cause for\tthe detention  of the  person concerned. The
\n     detention, it must be remembered, is based not on facts
\n     proved either  by applying the test of preponderance of
\n     probabilities or  of reasonable doubt. The detention is
\n     based on  the subjective  satisfaction of the detaining
\n     authority that  it is  necessary to detain a particular
\n     person in\torder to prevent him from acting in a manner
\n     prejudicial to  certain stated  objects. The proceeding
\n     of the Advisory Board has therefore to be
\n581<\/span>
\n     structured differently  from the proceeding of judicial
\n     or quasi judicial tribunals before which there is a lis
\n     to adjudicate upon.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Finally, the Court observed
\n\t  “We are  therefore of\t the opinion,  that. in\t the
\n     proceedings before\t the Advisory  Board, the detenu has
\n     no right  to cross-examine\t either the  persons on\t the
\n     basis of whose statement the order of detention is made
\n     or the detaining authority.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     17. Faced\twith the  difficulty created  by  the  above
\ndecision, learned  counsel submits  that he has not used the
\nword ‘cross-examination’  in the technical sense but used it
\nloosely in  the sense that the detenu would have examined as
\nhis witnesses  the persons  on whose statements the order of
\nthe detention  has been\t based, to  establish his  innocence
\nparticularly before  the judicially  trained  minds  of\t the
\nMembers of  the Advisory  Board. Even  if the  word  ‘cross-
\nexamination’ is taken in the loose sense as submitted by the
\nlearned counsel,  the Advisory\tBoard cannot be blamed; for,
\nthere was  no request  by the  detenu for  the production of
\nthose persons  before the  Advisory Board to examine them as
\nhis defence  witnesses. The  sixth submission  also  has  no
\nsubstance.\n<\/p>\n
     18. The seventh point formulated by learned counsel was
\n“that the Advisory Board was required to decide two issues:\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  whether the detention was justified when made;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) whether it  was  justified  on  the  date  of\t the
\n\t  Advisory Board’s report”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Mr. Jethmalani  did not  press before us sub-point (i).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
But he\tsubmitted that the Board ought to have found whether
\nor not\tthe order  of detention was justified on the date of
\nits report. We have perused the report of the Advisory Board
\nand find that the report covers both sub-points (i) and (ii)
\nenumerated above.\n<\/p>\n
     19. The  eight point  raised by learned counsel for the
\npetitioner is  that the\t procedure before the Advisory Board
\nwas ‘totally  unjust and discriminatory’. His submission was
\nthat although  the detaining  authority was  not present  in
\npersons before the Advisory Board, his
\n582<\/span>
\nrepresentatives were present to assist the Advisory Board on
\nissues of  law and fact in support of the order of detention
\nwhile there  was none  to assist  the detenu. The submission
\nhas been  based on  suspicion or guess, and is not borne out
\nby records.  The record\t shows that  the detenu was produced
\nbefore the  Advisory Board  and necessary questions were put
\nto him\tand answers  elicited by the Chairman and the Member
\nof the\tAdvisory Board\tand there was none present on behalf
\nof the\tdetaining authority.  This submission  also  has  no
\nsubstance.\n<\/p>\n
     20. The  last point  raised by  Mr. Jethmalani was that
\nthe cases  of the  four\t detenus  connected  with  the\tsame
\nincident were  reviewed by  the Board; after having released
\none  co-detenu,\t  namely;  Narasinghbhai   Durlabhbhai,\t  in
\npursuance of the Advisory Board’s order, it was incumbent on
\nthe detaining  authority to review the order of detention of
\nthe petitioners\t before us namely; Devji Vallabhbhai Tandel,
\n(petitioner in\tWrit Petition  No. 8070\t of 1981),  Narsingh
\nVallabhbhai Tandel,  (petitioner in  Writ Petition No. 23 of
\n1982) and  Lallubhai Govanbhai\tTandel (petitioner  in\tWrit
\nPetition No.  29 of  1982). As on a perusal of the report of
\nthe Advisory  Board, it\t was found  that Narsinh Vallabhbhai
\nTandel was  advised to\tbe released  on the ground of tender
\nage, learned counsel did not press the submission.\n<\/p>\n
     21. These petitions have no merits and are dismissed.
\nP.B.R.\t  Petitions dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
583<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Devji Vallabhbhai Tandel Etc vs The Administrator Of Goa, Daman & … on 29 March, 1982 Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR 1029, 1982 SCR (3) 553 Author: B Islam Bench: Islam, Baharul (J) PETITIONER: DEVJI VALLABHBHAI TANDEL ETC Vs. RESPONDENT: THE ADMINISTRATOR OF GOA, DAMAN & DIU & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT29\/03\/1982 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-97263","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDevji Vallabhbhai Tandel Etc vs The Administrator Of Goa, Daman & ... on 29 March, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devji-vallabhbhai-tandel-etc-vs-the-administrator-of-goa-daman-on-29-march-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Devji Vallabhbhai Tandel Etc vs The Administrator Of Goa, Daman & ... on 29 March, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devji-vallabhbhai-tandel-etc-vs-the-administrator-of-goa-daman-on-29-march-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1982-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-28T02:54:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"52 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devji-vallabhbhai-tandel-etc-vs-the-administrator-of-goa-daman-on-29-march-1982#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devji-vallabhbhai-tandel-etc-vs-the-administrator-of-goa-daman-on-29-march-1982\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Devji Vallabhbhai Tandel Etc vs The Administrator Of Goa, Daman & … on 29 March, 1982\",\"datePublished\":\"1982-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-28T02:54:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devji-vallabhbhai-tandel-etc-vs-the-administrator-of-goa-daman-on-29-march-1982\"},\"wordCount\":9050,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devji-vallabhbhai-tandel-etc-vs-the-administrator-of-goa-daman-on-29-march-1982#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devji-vallabhbhai-tandel-etc-vs-the-administrator-of-goa-daman-on-29-march-1982\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devji-vallabhbhai-tandel-etc-vs-the-administrator-of-goa-daman-on-29-march-1982\",\"name\":\"Devji Vallabhbhai Tandel Etc vs The Administrator Of Goa, Daman & ... on 29 March, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1982-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-28T02:54:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devji-vallabhbhai-tandel-etc-vs-the-administrator-of-goa-daman-on-29-march-1982#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devji-vallabhbhai-tandel-etc-vs-the-administrator-of-goa-daman-on-29-march-1982\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devji-vallabhbhai-tandel-etc-vs-the-administrator-of-goa-daman-on-29-march-1982#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Devji Vallabhbhai Tandel Etc vs The Administrator Of Goa, Daman & … on 29 March, 1982\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Devji Vallabhbhai Tandel Etc vs The Administrator Of Goa, Daman & ... on 29 March, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devji-vallabhbhai-tandel-etc-vs-the-administrator-of-goa-daman-on-29-march-1982","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Devji Vallabhbhai Tandel Etc vs The Administrator Of Goa, Daman & ... on 29 March, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devji-vallabhbhai-tandel-etc-vs-the-administrator-of-goa-daman-on-29-march-1982","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1982-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-28T02:54:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"52 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devji-vallabhbhai-tandel-etc-vs-the-administrator-of-goa-daman-on-29-march-1982#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devji-vallabhbhai-tandel-etc-vs-the-administrator-of-goa-daman-on-29-march-1982"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Devji Vallabhbhai Tandel Etc vs The Administrator Of Goa, Daman & … on 29 March, 1982","datePublished":"1982-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-28T02:54:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devji-vallabhbhai-tandel-etc-vs-the-administrator-of-goa-daman-on-29-march-1982"},"wordCount":9050,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devji-vallabhbhai-tandel-etc-vs-the-administrator-of-goa-daman-on-29-march-1982#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devji-vallabhbhai-tandel-etc-vs-the-administrator-of-goa-daman-on-29-march-1982","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devji-vallabhbhai-tandel-etc-vs-the-administrator-of-goa-daman-on-29-march-1982","name":"Devji Vallabhbhai Tandel Etc vs The Administrator Of Goa, Daman & ... on 29 March, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1982-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-28T02:54:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devji-vallabhbhai-tandel-etc-vs-the-administrator-of-goa-daman-on-29-march-1982#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devji-vallabhbhai-tandel-etc-vs-the-administrator-of-goa-daman-on-29-march-1982"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devji-vallabhbhai-tandel-etc-vs-the-administrator-of-goa-daman-on-29-march-1982#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Devji Vallabhbhai Tandel Etc vs The Administrator Of Goa, Daman & … on 29 March, 1982"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97263","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=97263"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97263\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=97263"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=97263"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=97263"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}