P. Rajadurai Vs. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
cofeposa - detenu not given any written notice about enquiry by advisory board--given oral intimation on 20.5.1992--taken from jail in trichy to madras and from there to delhi--reaching delhi on 23.5.1992--no time available for detenu to contact his friends or relatives for arrangements to assist him and also to make arrangements to adduce rebuttal evidence--advisory board examining departmental officers in absence of detenu--next day, examining detenu in absence of departmental officers--detenu prejudiced--proceedings before board not fair and not in accordance with provisions of statute--detention order quashed--conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act (52 of 1974), section 11--foreign exchange regulation act (46 of 1973), section 34. - - in this connection, he submitted that the right of the detenu to take assistance of his friend and adduce rebuttal evidence is well recognised by the apex court in a. for contra, the learned additional central government standing counsel would submit that the detenu has not complained to the advisory board of his not being given an opportunity to take his friend for assistance and to adduce rebuttal evidence and as such he would not be in any way prejudiced by the proceedings which went on 22.5.1992 in view of the fact that he was examined on the next day, namely, on 23.5.1992. in this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the matter of preventive detention, the test is not one of prejudice but one of strict compliance with the provisions of the act. supporter'.the term 'friend' used in the judgments of this court was more in this sense than meaning 'a person known well to another and regarded with liking, affection and loyalty'.a person not being a friend in the normal sense could be picked up for rendering assistance within the frame of the law as settled by this court. in the matter of preventive detention, the test is not one of prejudice but one of strict compliance with the provisions of the act and when there is a failure to comply with those requirements it becomes difficult to sustain the order.orderk.m. natarajan, j.1. this writ petition is filed by the detenu himself under article 226 of the constitution of india seeking for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus quashing the order of detention dated 3.4.1992 and [to] set him at liberty. the impugned order of detention was passed by the first respondent, namely, joint secretary to the government of india, ministry of finance, department of revenue, new delhi, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 3(1) of the conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act 1974 (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as the act) with a view to preventing the detenu in future from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange.2. the facts which led to the passing of the impugned order and which are necessary for the disposal of this petition can be stated as follows:--on 9.12.1991 the officers of enforcement directorate, madras, on information, intercepted a person by name shanmugham, holder of indian passport no. n.629952 dated 27.5.1982 and holder of ticket no. 098 4207 885 8855 for the flight bound for singapore, and searched his person and his baggage as a result of which foreign currencies, to wit, saudi riyals 44,750/-, us $ 2950, dm 4550/-, italian liras 6,50,000/-, oman riyals 600 [and] french francs 200/- were recovered from the mixture packet kept in his leather bag. a sum of us $ 100/- was also recovered from his leather bag. a sum of us $ 100/- was also recovered from his pant packet. all the aforesaid foreign currencies were seized by the officials in terms of section 34 of the foreign exchange regulation act, 1973. his statements were recorded on 9-12-1991 and 10-12-1991. he was arrested by the enforcement officer and produced before the additional chief metropolitan magistrate (eo-i), madras. thereupon the residence of the detenu was searched by the officers of the enforcement on 10.12.1991 but nothing was seized. on the night of 10.12.1991 on the return of the detenu to madras from singapore on the strength of passport no. c.241611 dated 30.11.1987 in the name of one selvaraj, the detenu was apprehended by the officers of enforcement, madras and his statements were recorded on 11.12.1991 and 12.12.1991. there upon he was arrested by the enforcement officers, madras, on 12.12.1991 and produced before the additional chief metropolitan magistrate, eo-i, madras. subsequently after examining selvaraj, sathiamurthi and others and after necessary follow-up action, the impugned order of detention was passed by the detaining authority.3. though the impugned order was challenged on various grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner confirmed his (confined?) his argument on the only ground, namely (sic). the advisory board meeting was fixed to take place at delhi on 22.5.1992. the detenu was called by the jailor all of a sudden at about 11.00 a.m. on 20.5.1992. the jailor orally intimated him that he had received intimation that the advisory board was scheduled to hear him on 22.5.1992 and that he should be ready to go to delhi. he was not served with any written notice. at 9.00 p.m. on the same day he was handed over to the escorting police officers consisting of five constables. the detenu was brought out of the central prison, trichy at 9 p.m. on 20.5.1992 and was made to stay in the police quarters on the night and during the early hours of 21.5.1992 he was brought to trichy railway station and brought to madras by 12 noon by pallavan express. on 21.5.1992 night he was taken in the tamil nadu express to new delhi. he reached new delhi on the morning of 23.5.1992. he was produced before the advisory board at 2.p.m. which had its sitting at delhi high court. it is stated that since the oral intimation was given to him only at 11 a.m. on 20.5.1992 the detenu could not get any help to assist him before the advisory board. his earlier request for assistance of a lawyer, even on 11.5.1992, was not even replied and he could not contact his relatives or friends. the detenu did not even know how he was going to reach delhi when the advisory board hearing was posted to 22.5.1992. thus giving just a few hours of intimation before holding the meeting by the advisory board could never amount to giving adequate and reasonable opportunity. further, the right of the detenu to be assisted by a friend cannot be denied even by the advisory board. consequently he has a right to summon witnesses on his behalf to be examined before the advisory board. he has got a right to summon witnesses to lead further rebuttal evidence which he [is] constitutionally guaranteed. since it was impossible for the detenu to have exercised this right, his continued detention is illegal.4. in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner was referred to the advisory board as early as 5.5.1992 for fixing a date of hearing as per the convenience of the advisory board and the petitioner was also informed. regarding the allegations that the intimation was given on 20.5.1992 at 11 a.m. about the hearing on 22.5.1992 before the advisory board, that no written notice was given to the detenu and that the petitioner was handed over to the escorts for being produced at delhi on 23.5.1992, it was submitted that the said allegations are to be answered by the jail authorities since these incidents were beyond the control of the respondents. the detenu was produced on 25.5.1992 before the advisory board and the petitioner himself had explained his entire case in english.5. while the petitioner has taken the above-said ground in paras 12, 13 and 14 of his affidavit, the respondents have denied the said allegations in paras 14 and 15 of the counter-affidavit.6. to consider the ground raised by the petitioner, this court called for a report from the superintendent, central prison, tiruchi, and summoned the authorities to produce the jail records. the jail records were produced. from the jail records, we find that the detenu was informed about the advisory board meeting on 20.5.1992 and he was taken out from jail on the evening and he was kept in the police quarters and thereupon on the next morning, he was brought to trichy railway station and then to madras on 21.5.1992. on 21.5.1992 he was taken in a train and reached delhi on the morning of 23.5.1992. he was produced before the advisory board in the afternoon. the learned counsel produced before us the proceedings of the advisory board which showed that since the detenu was not produced on 22.5.1992, the advisory board heard the officers of the department, and recorded its proceedings on 22.5.1992 that the report of the advisory board would be sent to the government in due course. the next day, before even they could sent the report, the advisory board was informed on 23.5.1992 at 10.00 a.m. that the detenu has since arrived in delhi and was lodged in tihar jail, delhi. thereupon the advisory board fixed the hearing at 2.00 p.m. on 23.5.92, but the officers of the department could not be informed as that day was a holiday, being saturday. the advisory board heard the detenu and then gave its opinion. thus, it is clear that when the officers of the department were examined by the advisory board in the absence of the detenu, and it is only after the examination of the officers of the department on 22.5.1992 and when they were about to send a report on the next day, they came to know of the fact that the detenu was brought and kept in jail and after the detenu was brought on 23.5.1992, they examined the detenu.7. the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the detenu was not aware of the statement made by the officers of the department before the advisory board so as to enable him to adduce rebuttal evidence. further, by not giving advance intimation about the hearing by the advisory board, the detenu was deprived of engaging his friend or relative to represent him before the advisory board and to adduce rebuttal evidence which is guaranteed under the constitution of india. in this connection, he submitted that the right of the detenu to take assistance of his friend and adduce rebuttal evidence is well recognised by the apex court in a.k. roy v. union of india : 1982crilj340 . the learned counsel also drew the attention of this court to two decisions of this court. in w.p. no. 10010 of 1984 dated 9.4.1985 (babu v. state by public prosecutor) rendered by k. ramaswami, j. (as he then was) and k.m. natarajan, j. in respect of the enquiry by the advisory board on 9.5.1984 at 10.30 a.m. the detenu was served with the notice on 7.5.1984 at 4.50 p.m. there was hardly even 24 hours time left for the detenu for making his written representation. under section 11 of the act, the advisory board shall issue such notice to the detenu to make his written representation and also further inform him that if he desires to be heard in person, he will also be heard. in the circumstances stated above, it was held:in the circumstances, therefore, unless sufficient time is given to the detenu for making his written representation, it could not be said that the mandatory provisions in section 11 had been complied with. if the advisory board's report was not in accordance with the provisions of the act, then the confirmation of the detention order on the basis of the advisory board's report also gets vitiated.in w.p. no. 3021 of 1992 dated 21.7.1992 (s. mariyadoss v. the district magistrate and district collector, tiruchirappalli district, tiruchirappalli) a decision rendered by us, we have referred to the decision in w.p. no. 10010 of 1984 and took a similar view. the fact involved in the said case was that, for the meeting of the advisory board held on 2.4.1992, the notice of the meeting was served on the detenu on 3.4.1992. in the circumstances it was held;therefore, the detenu was not given adequate and reasonable time for making his representation before the advisory board and adducing rebuttal evidence by calling witnesses and as such the mandatory provision under section 11 has not been complied with and the detenu has been denied valuable right. the advisory board's proceeding was not fair and in accordance with the provisions of the act and so the confirmation of the detention order on the basis of the advisory board's report gets vitiated.for contra, the learned additional central government standing counsel would submit that the detenu has not complained to the advisory board of his not being given an opportunity to take his friend for assistance and to adduce rebuttal evidence and as such he would not be in any way prejudiced by the proceedings which went on 22.5.1992 in view of the fact that he was examined on the next day, namely, on 23.5.1992. in this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the matter of preventive detention, the test is not one of prejudice but one of strict compliance with the provisions of the act. in johney 'd' couto v. state of : 1988crilj178 .6. the rule in a.k. roy's case (supra) made it clear that the detenu was entitled to the assistance of a 'friend'. the word 'friend' used there was obviously not intended to carry the meaning of the term in common parlance. one of the meanings of the word 'friend' according to the collins english dictionary is 'an ally in a fighter cause; supporter'. the term 'friend' used in the judgments of this court was more in this sense than meaning 'a person known well to another and regarded with liking, affection and loyalty'. a person not being a friend in the normal sense could be picked up for rendering assistance within the frame of the law as settled by this court. the advisory board has, of course, to be careful in permitting assistance of a friend in order to ensure due observance of the policy of law that a detenu is not entitled to representation through a lawyer. as has been indicated by this court, what cannot be permitted directly should not be allowed to be done in an indirect way. sundararajan in this view of the matter, was perhaps a friend prepared to assist the detenu before the advisory board and the refusal of such assistance to the appellant was not justified. it is not for this court to examine and assess what prejudice has been caused to the appellant on account of such denial. this court has reiterated the position that matters relating to preventive detention are strict proceedings and warrant full compliance with the requirements of law.in tsering dolkar v. administrator, u.t., delhi : 1987crilj988 it has been held;the detenu has to be informed about the grounds of detention in a language which he understands. the fact that the detenu's wife knew the language in which the grounds were framed does not satisfy the legal requirement. in the matter of preventive detention, the test is not one of prejudice but one of strict compliance with the provisions of the act and when there is a failure to comply with those requirements it becomes difficult to sustain the order.even otherwise, in the instant case, as seen from the facts set out above, the detenu was not given any written notice about the enquiry by the advisory board. he was given only an oral intimation on 20.5.1992 and within a few hours, he was taken from the jail and kept in the custody of police during night and thereafter in the early morning, he was taken from trichy to madras and from madras to delhi and they reached delhi on 23.5.1992. the enquiry by the advisory board was originally fixed on 22.5.1992. we find that there was no time available to the detenu to contact his relative or friend for making arrangements to assist him in the enquiry before the advisory board. there was no time to make arrangements to adduce rebuttal evidence. we have gone through the proceedings of the advisory board. we find that in the absence of the detenu, the advisory board examined the officers of the department and [had] also drawn proceedings. on the next day, after coming to know that the detenu was brought to delhi, the advisory board examined the detenu and sent the report to the government. since that day happened to be a holiday, no officer of the department was available, and the advisory board examined the detenu in the absence of the officers of the department. in the circumstances, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the detenu was prejudiced and it cannot be said that the proceedings before the advisory board is fair and in accordance with the provisions of the statute. the ratio laid down in the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in all fours applicable to the facts of this case. hence, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the detention order is vitiated on this ground alone.8. in the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of detention is quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other cause.

Judgment:
ORDER

K.M. Natarajan, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the detenu himself under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus quashing the order of detention dated 3.4.1992 and [to] set him at liberty. The impugned order of detention was passed by the first respondent, namely, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to preventing the detenu in future from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange.

2. The facts which led to the passing of the impugned order and which are necessary for the disposal of this petition can be stated as follows:--

On 9.12.1991 the officers of Enforcement Directorate, Madras, on information, intercepted a person by name Shanmugham, holder of Indian Passport No. N.629952 dated 27.5.1982 and holder of ticket No. 098 4207 885 8855 for the flight bound for Singapore, and searched his person and his baggage as a result of which foreign currencies, to wit, Saudi Riyals 44,750/-, US $ 2950, DM 4550/-, Italian Liras 6,50,000/-, Oman Riyals 600 [and] French Francs 200/- were recovered from the mixture packet kept in his leather bag. A sum of US $ 100/- was also recovered from his leather bag. A sum of US $ 100/- was also recovered from his pant packet. All the aforesaid foreign currencies were seized by the officials in terms of Section 34 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. His statements were recorded on 9-12-1991 and 10-12-1991. He was arrested by the Enforcement Officer and produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (EO-I), Madras. Thereupon the residence of the detenu was searched by the officers of the Enforcement on 10.12.1991 but nothing was seized. On the night of 10.12.1991 on the return of the detenu to Madras from Singapore on the strength of passport No. C.241611 dated 30.11.1987 in the name of one Selvaraj, the detenu was apprehended by the officers of Enforcement, Madras and his statements were recorded on 11.12.1991 and 12.12.1991. There upon he was arrested by the Enforcement Officers, Madras, on 12.12.1991 and produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EO-I, Madras. Subsequently after examining Selvaraj, Sathiamurthi and others and after necessary follow-up action, the impugned order of detention was passed by the detaining authority.

3. Though the impugned order was challenged on various grounds, the learned Counsel for the petitioner confirmed his (confined?) his argument on the only ground, namely (sic). The Advisory Board meeting was fixed to take place at Delhi on 22.5.1992. The detenu was called by the jailor all of a sudden at about 11.00 A.M. on 20.5.1992. The Jailor orally intimated him that he had received intimation that the Advisory Board was scheduled to hear him on 22.5.1992 and that he should be ready to go to Delhi. He was not served with any written notice. At 9.00 P.M. on the same day he was handed over to the escorting Police Officers consisting of five constables. The detenu was brought out of the Central Prison, Trichy at 9 P.M. on 20.5.1992 and was made to stay in the police quarters on the night and during the early hours of 21.5.1992 he was brought to Trichy Railway Station and brought to Madras by 12 noon by Pallavan Express. On 21.5.1992 night he was taken in the Tamil Nadu Express to New Delhi. He reached New Delhi on the morning of 23.5.1992. He was produced before the Advisory Board at 2.P.M. which had its sitting at Delhi High Court. It is stated that since the oral intimation was given to him only at 11 A.M. on 20.5.1992 the detenu could not get any help to assist him before the Advisory Board. His earlier request for assistance of a lawyer, even on 11.5.1992, was not even replied and he could not contact his relatives or friends. The detenu did not even know how he was going to reach Delhi when the Advisory Board hearing was posted to 22.5.1992. Thus giving just a few hours of intimation before holding the meeting by the Advisory Board could never amount to giving adequate and reasonable opportunity. Further, the right of the detenu to be assisted by a friend cannot be denied even by the Advisory Board. Consequently he has a right to summon witnesses on his behalf to be examined before the Advisory Board. He has got a right to summon witnesses to lead further rebuttal evidence which he [is] constitutionally guaranteed. Since it was impossible for the detenu to have exercised this right, his continued detention is illegal.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner was referred to the Advisory Board as early as 5.5.1992 for fixing a date of hearing as per the convenience of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was also informed. Regarding the allegations that the intimation was given on 20.5.1992 at 11 A.M. about the hearing on 22.5.1992 before the Advisory Board, that no written notice was given to the detenu and that the petitioner was handed over to the escorts for being produced at Delhi on 23.5.1992, it was submitted that the said allegations are to be answered by the Jail Authorities since these incidents were beyond the control of the respondents. The detenu was produced on 25.5.1992 before the Advisory Board and the petitioner himself had explained his entire case in English.

5. While the petitioner has taken the above-said ground in paras 12, 13 and 14 of his affidavit, the respondents have denied the said allegations in paras 14 and 15 of the counter-affidavit.

6. To consider the ground raised by the petitioner, this Court called for a report from the Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchi, and summoned the authorities to produce the jail records. The jail records were produced. From the jail records, we find that the detenu was informed about the Advisory Board Meeting on 20.5.1992 and he was taken out from jail on the evening and he was kept in the Police Quarters and thereupon on the next morning, he was brought to Trichy Railway Station and then to Madras on 21.5.1992. On 21.5.1992 he was taken in a train and reached Delhi on the morning of 23.5.1992. He was produced before the Advisory Board in the afternoon. The Learned Counsel produced before us the proceedings of the Advisory Board which showed that since the detenu was not produced on 22.5.1992, the Advisory Board heard the officers of the department, and recorded its proceedings on 22.5.1992 that the report of the Advisory Board would be sent to the Government in due course. The next day, before even they could sent the report, the Advisory Board was informed on 23.5.1992 at 10.00 A.M. that the detenu has since arrived in Delhi and was lodged in Tihar Jail, Delhi. Thereupon the Advisory Board fixed the hearing at 2.00 P.M. on 23.5.92, but the officers of the department could not be informed as that day was a holiday, being Saturday. The Advisory Board heard the detenu and then gave its opinion. Thus, it is clear that when the officers of the department were examined by the Advisory Board in the absence of the detenu, and it is only after the examination of the officers of the department on 22.5.1992 and when they were about to send a report on the next day, they came to know of the fact that the detenu was brought and kept in jail and after the detenu was brought on 23.5.1992, they examined the detenu.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the detenu was not aware of the statement made by the officers of the department before the Advisory Board so as to enable him to adduce rebuttal evidence. Further, by not giving advance intimation about the hearing by the Advisory Board, the detenu was deprived of engaging his friend or relative to represent him before the Advisory Board and to adduce rebuttal evidence which is guaranteed under the Constitution of India. In this connection, he submitted that the right of the detenu to take assistance of his friend and adduce rebuttal evidence is well recognised by the apex court in A.K. Roy v. Union of India : 1982CriLJ340 . The learned Counsel also drew the attention of this Court to two decisions of this Court. In W.P. No. 10010 of 1984 dated 9.4.1985 (Babu v. State by Public Prosecutor) rendered by K. Ramaswami, J. (as he then was) and K.M. Natarajan, J. in respect of the enquiry by the Advisory Board on 9.5.1984 at 10.30 A.M. the detenu was served with the notice on 7.5.1984 at 4.50 P.M. There was hardly even 24 hours time left for the detenu for making his written representation. Under Section 11 of the Act, the Advisory Board shall issue such notice to the detenu to make his written representation and also further inform him that if he desires to be heard in person, he will also be heard. In the circumstances stated above, it was held:

In the circumstances, therefore, unless sufficient time is given to the detenu for making his written representation, it could not be said that the mandatory provisions in Section 11 had been complied with. If the Advisory Board's report was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, then the confirmation of the detention order on the basis of the Advisory Board's report also gets vitiated.

In W.P. No. 3021 of 1992 dated 21.7.1992 (S. Mariyadoss v. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli) a decision rendered by us, we have referred to the decision in W.P. No. 10010 of 1984 and took a similar view. The fact involved in the said case was that, for the meeting of the Advisory Board held on 2.4.1992, the notice of the meeting was served on the detenu on 3.4.1992. In the circumstances it was held;

Therefore, the detenu was not given adequate and reasonable time for making his representation before the Advisory Board and adducing rebuttal evidence by calling witnesses and as such the mandatory provision under Section 11 has not been complied with and the detenu has been denied valuable right. The Advisory Board's proceeding was not fair and in accordance with the provisions of the Act and so the confirmation of the detention order on the basis of the Advisory Board's report gets vitiated.

For contra, the learned Additional Central Government standing counsel would submit that the detenu has not complained to the Advisory Board of his not being given an opportunity to take his friend for assistance and to adduce rebuttal evidence and as such he would not be in any way prejudiced by the proceedings which went on 22.5.1992 in view of the fact that he was examined on the next day, namely, on 23.5.1992. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the matter of preventive detention, the test is not one of prejudice but one of strict compliance with the provisions of the Act. In Johney 'D' Couto v. State of : 1988CriLJ178 .

6. The rule in A.K. Roy's case (supra) made it clear that the detenu was entitled to the assistance of a 'friend'. The word 'Friend' used there was obviously not intended to carry the meaning of the term in common parlance. One of the meanings of the word 'friend' according to the Collins English Dictionary is 'an ally in a fighter cause; Supporter'. The term 'Friend' used in the judgments of this Court was more in this sense than meaning 'a person known well to another and regarded with liking, affection and loyalty'. A person not being a friend in the normal sense could be picked up for rendering assistance within the frame of the law as settled by this Court. The Advisory Board has, of course, to be careful in permitting assistance of a friend in order to ensure due observance of the policy of law that a detenu is not entitled to representation through a lawyer. As has been indicated by this Court, what cannot be permitted directly should not be allowed to be done in an indirect way. Sundararajan in this view of the matter, was perhaps a friend prepared to assist the detenu before the Advisory Board and the refusal of such assistance to the appellant was not justified. It is not for this Court to examine and assess what prejudice has been caused to the appellant on account of such denial. This Court has reiterated the position that matters relating to preventive detention are strict proceedings and warrant full compliance with the requirements of law.

In Tsering Dolkar v. Administrator, U.T., Delhi : 1987CriLJ988 it has been held;

The Detenu has to be informed about the grounds of detention in a language which he understands. The fact that the detenu's wife knew the language in which the grounds were framed does not satisfy the legal requirement. In the matter of preventive detention, the test is not one of prejudice but one of strict compliance with the provisions of the Act and when there is a failure to comply with those requirements it becomes difficult to sustain the order.

Even otherwise, in the instant case, as seen from the facts set out above, the detenu was not given any written notice about the enquiry by the Advisory Board. He was given only an oral intimation on 20.5.1992 and within a few hours, he was taken from the jail and kept in the custody of police during night and thereafter in the early morning, he was taken from Trichy to Madras and from Madras to Delhi and they reached Delhi on 23.5.1992. The Enquiry by the Advisory Board was originally fixed on 22.5.1992. We find that there was no time available to the detenu to contact his relative or friend for making arrangements to assist him in the enquiry before the Advisory Board. There was no time to make arrangements to adduce rebuttal evidence. We have gone through the proceedings of the Advisory Board. We find that in the absence of the detenu, the Advisory Board examined the officers of the Department and [had] also drawn proceedings. On the next day, after coming to know that the detenu was brought to Delhi, the Advisory Board examined the detenu and sent the report to the Government. Since that day happened to be a holiday, no officer of the department was available, and the Advisory Board examined the detenu in the absence of the officers of the department. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the detenu was prejudiced and it cannot be said that the proceedings before the Advisory Board is fair and in accordance with the provisions of the statute. The ratio laid down in the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is in all fours applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the detention order is vitiated on this ground alone.

8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of detention is quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other cause.