P.K. Bahri, J.
(1) This petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of Union of India & Others the detention order dated February 13, 1989 passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1) of the Prevention or Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and the declaration dated April 17, 1989, issued under Section 10(1) of the Act fixing the period of detention of the petitioner as two years from the date of the detention.
(2) Counsel for the petitioner in support of this writ petition has urged that the declaration made under Section 10 of the Act was served only on July 4, 1989, Along with the copy of the confirmation order whereas the meeting of the Advisory Board had already taken place and thus, the petitioner has been deprived of his right to n,ake a representation against the declaration to the Advisory Board. These points have been taken in ground No. X and ground No. Xii in the writ petition.
(3) The affidavit filed by Ms. Nisha Sahai Achuthan, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, was quite vague in respect of these grounds. However, the original record has been produced at the time of arguments and it clearly shows that the declaration under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued on April 17, 1989, and the same was duly served on the detenu on April 21, 1989. The signatures of the detenu duly counter signed by the Superintendent (Central Prison), Trivendrum, on the duplicate copy of the declaration is there on the record and counsel for the petitioner has nothing to say on this point in face of the record.
(4) However, counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is nothing to show that a reference had been made to the Advisory Board seeking the
(5) Counsel for the petitioner thereafter raised the contention that the detenu was not intimated in writing that a reference has been made to the Advisory Board with regard to the declaration as well. However, counsel for the petitioner has not brought to my notice any statutory requirement that the authorities were legally bound to communicate to the detenu that a reference had been made to the Advisory Board with regard to the declaration as well although the report of the Advisory Board clearly indicates that counsel for the detenu had appeared and the Board had dealt with the question of declaration which would show that the detenu was very well aware that the reference stood made to the Board and the Board duly considered the matter before giving its opinion. The meeting of the Board had taken place on April 25, 1989, i.e., after the declaration had been served on April 21, 1989 on the detenu. So, I find no merit in this contention as well.
(6) The learned counsel for the petitioner has then urged that a bail application in respect of the detenu moved before the Judicial First Class Magistrate and the order rejecting the bail application dated June 9, 1988, have not been served pan passu the grounds of detention and thus, it vitiates the detention order. These two documents have not been considered by the detaining authority and are not relied upon documents. Hence, the question of serving copies of these documents pan passu the grounds of detenion did not arise.
(7) In the alternative, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that these, two documents were very material and vital documents and being not placed before the detaining and declaring authorities had the effect of vitiating the impugned orders. He leas urged that the sponsoring authority had suppressed material and vital facts from the authorities which could have influenced the mind of the authorities with regard to the matter of passing of the impugned orders.
(8) Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has pointed out that the grounds of detention clearly show that the detenu had moved another bail application later on and the bail was granted to the detenu and thus, even if the earlier bail application and the order rejecting the bail application had not been placed before the authorities concerned, the same would not amount to suppression of any vital or important material from consideration of the authorities. It is clear that the bail application and the order granting the bail have been duly Union of India & Others consider,ed by the authorities concerned before passing the impugned orders and so the earlier bail application and the order rejecting the bail application had lost all their importance and it is not the plea of the detenu that any additional facts were there in the first bail application which had not been reproduced in the second bail application so that any material which could be favorable to the detenu had been suppressed from the authorities. So, I hold that the omission of the sponsoring authority to place before the authorities the first bail application and the order rejecting that bail application would not have in any manner affected the subjective satisfaction of the authorities in reaching the conclusion that the detention order and the declaration are required to be made in the present case.
(9) Counsel for the petitioner has made reference to certain judgments which', of course, lay down the law that the bail application and the order made on the bail application are vital documents which must be placed before the authorities concerned in order to enable the authorities to consider the question of passing the detention order or the declaration but in none of those cases the facts were similar as in the present case. In the present case, a subsequent bail application and the order granting the bail have been duly placed before the authorities and so, it cannot be said that any material favorable to the detenu had been suppressed from the authorities concerned.
(10) I need not refer to the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the above mentioned point because the. law is quite settled on this aspect that the bail application and the order made on the bail application and the definitely material and vital documents.
(11) No other point has been urged before me.
(12) Hence, I find no merit in this writ petition which I, dismiss and discharge the rule.