Abdual Rafi Shabhandari vs State Of Maharashtra
2010 Latest Caselaw 94 Bom

                                                           1                        CWP 1838.2010




                                                                                             
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                     
                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1838 OF 2010




                                                                    
    Abdual Rafi Shabhandari
    Aged years,
    An Indian Inhabitant,
    R/o.Shabhandari House,




                                                          
    9 Siddique Street, Bhatkal,
    Karwar, Karnataka.              ig                          ..                Petitioner
                                                                                  (brother of
                                                                                  the detenue)

    Tanveer Ahmed Shabhandri
                                  
    At present in Nashik Central Prison.                        ..                detenue.
                                                                                  (In Jail)
                                       .. Versus ..
      


    1.     State of Maharashtra, through
   



           Secretary to the Government of
           Maharashta, Home Department(Special),
           Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,





    2.     Anna Dani,
           the Principal Secretary to the
           Government of Maharashtra,
           Home (Preventive Detention)
           Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.





    3.     The Superintendent of Prison,
           Nasik Road Central Prison,
           Nasik Road,
           Maharashtra.                  ..                                    Respondents


    Mrs.A.M.Z. Ansari a/w Nasreen Ayubi, Advocate for the Petitioner,

    Mr. D.P.Adsule, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondents.
               ........




                                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:34:31 :::
                                                            2                        CWP 1838.2010

    CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND P.D. KODE, JJ.

    Date of reserving the judgment                    : 22.10.2010




                                                                                             
    Date of pronouncing the judgment : 26.10.2010




                                                                     
    JUDGMENT : (PER : P.D.Kode, J.)




                                                                    

1. The petitioner is brother of the detenue and claims to be interested

in the life, welfare and personal liberty of the detenue. He has challenged the

order of detention No.PSA-1209/CR-29/SPL-3(A) dated 2nd April, 2009,

passed by the respondent no.2 in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1)

of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling

Activities Act, 1974(52 of 1974)(hereinafter for short referred as "COFEPOSA

Act"), ordering the detention of his brother i.e. detenue Tanveer and prayed

for issuing a writ quashing and setting aside the same and directing that detenue

be set at liberty, on the several grounds as set out in the petition. The prayer is

opposed by the respondents by refuting the contentions taken by the petitioner

vide affidavits-in-reply of respondent no.2 filed and affidavit of sponsoring

authority.

2. The facts relevant to the said order of detention challenged are as

under:

It was brought to notice of detaining authority that on 1st December,

2008 Officers of Air Intelligence Unit noticed detenue while his clearance

through customs moving briskly and suspiciously in the Arrival hall of

Module-2C, C.S.I. Airport, Mumbai with two pieces of checked in baggages

and two pieces of hand baggages avoiding putting of baggages in screening

3 CWP 1838.2010

machine placed in the green channel. He was stopped at exit gate. Scrutiny of

his passport revealed his address as house no.71, Durganiwas, 4th Cross

Okkipuram, Banglore, Karnataka. Upon query regarding contents of baggages,

he replied of carrying household goods and some watches. Not satisfied by the

said answer, he was asked to open the shoulder bag. Upon opening the same

was found containing large quantity of wrist watches. The other three baggages

upon lifting were found to be exceptionally heavy. The detenue on questioning

confirmed that all the said three baggages were containing wrist watches. Since

examination of the same was not possible in baggage hall the detenue was

escorted alongwith baggages to the A.I.U. Office departure 2C of C.S.I. Airport

Mumbai for detailed examination, with panchas accompaning him. The

examination effected in presence of panchas resulted in the recovery of 1496

pieces of assorted wrist watches of Titan brand, which were provisionally

valued at Rs.14,96,000/- and were seized under panchanama.

The detenue in his statement recorded on the same day under section

108 of the Customs Act admitted possession, carriage, non-declaration,

recovery and seizure of 1496 wrist watches from his baggages. He stated of

holding Dubai residence visa and residing at Dubai while his wife, children and

parents staying at native address at 9, Shabandan House, Siddique Street,

Bhatkal, Karnataka. He stated of working at Alghasa Perfumes as purchase

supervisor in Dubai since 1992 and earning monthly salary of UAE Dirham

4000/- and having studied up to 7th Standard in Urdu medium. He admitted that

the wrist watches were given to him by Mr. Khali- businessman in Dubai for

handing over to his contact man, Mr. Salauddin in Mumbai and had met Mr.

Salauddin once in Dubai, who had then told that he was staying at Mohammed

4 CWP 1838.2010

Ali Road area. He was not knowing exact address of Salauddin. The detenue

had undertaken the job for monetary consideration of Rs.10,000/- and one way

air ticket from Dubai to Mumbai and had not opted red counter to avoid

declaration of wrist watches and payment of the custom duty.

The detenue was arrested on 2/12/2008 and granted bail on 9/12/2008

and had availed the same on 20/12/2008. Senior Manager, Titan Industries

Limited vide letter dated 12/12/2008 informed that the seized watches are

genuine Titan watches and also submitted the Uniform Consumer Price/MRP

for the wrist watches. The total value of the 1496 wrist watches was given as

Rs.32,42,325/-(Local Market Value). Out of the 7 visits of detenue during the

year 2008, 2 visits were only for two days. The detenue on 2/12/2008 filed first

retraction statement. The rebuttal to the said retraction statement was filed on

22/1/2009. The further retraction statement was filed by the detenue before the

ACCM, Mumbai on 24/1/2009. The detenue had thus attempted to smuggle the

dutiable goods without payment of duty, which indicates that there is propensity

of repetition of the offences. His smuggling activities were falling under section

111(l) & (m) of Customs Act 1962.

3. Upon considering such material brought to the notice by Sponsoring

Authority, vide proposal sent and after verifying the same and the further

material called, the Detaining Authority arrived at subjective satisfaction that it

was necessary to pass the order of detention for preventing detenue from

smuggling goods in future and hence passed the impugned order of detention on

2nd April 2009 and on the same day issued communication bearing

No.PSA-1209/CR-29/SPL-3(A) dated 2/4/2009 containing the grounds of

5 CWP 1838.2010

detention.

On 21/04/2010 an application of surrender was filed by detenue

before learned ACCM, Mumbai and he surrendered on the same day. On

30/04/2010 the advocate for detenue wrote a letter to Sponsoring Authority,

Assistant Commissioner of Customs, AIU Mumbai informing about the

surrender of detenue with a request to serve impugned order of detention. Again

on 4/05/2010 a letter was written by advocate of detenue to the COFEPOSA

cell for serving the Order of Detention. Again on 6/05/2010 his advocate wrote

a letter to Detaining Authority annexing copies of letter dated 30/04/2010 and

4/05/2010 with a request to serve Order of Detention.

4. Though the petitioner has taken many grounds in the petition in

support of his prayer of quashing and setting aside the order of detention and

continued detention, at the hearing the submissions were mainly centered only

upon the grounds, which are dealt with one by one hereinafter along with the

submissions advanced by both the parties regarding the same. Such a course is

adopted for the sake of brevity and to avoid reproduction of the same matters

again and again. Needless to add that though learned counsel for the petitioner

had attempted to advance submissions regarding some other grounds, has

ultimately left the same in deference to the legal position regarding relevant

aspects pointed out by the Court. In short, it is the thrust of submission of the

learned counsel for the petitioner that due to the reasons canvassed by her, the

order of detention is illegal, untenable and liable to be quashed and set aside

with direction to set the detenue at liberty.

6 CWP 1838.2010

5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner firstly urged that the detenue

is born in Bhatkal, Karwar, Karnataka State and has studied up to 7 th standard

in Urdu medium at Bhatkal where medium of instruction was Urdu. That the

detenue is not having workable knowledge of English as claimed by the

respondents vide their reply. Inspite of that no translation in Urdu of impugned

order of detention and grounds of detention were furnished to the him. She

drew our attention to the transfer certificate Annexure-D of the school in

which the detenue had studied. She urged that the fact that the detenue cannot

speak and understand English and had requested the officer recording his said

statement to write the statement on his behalf is clearly spelt out from his

statement recorded on 2/12/2008. She urged that hence the said statement

contained the endorsement at the foot of being read over and explained to

detenue in simple Hindi, which he has understood

6 In the same context, she further urged that on the same backdrop

the stand of respondent no.2 in paragraph no.3 in affidavit in reply on basis of

endorsement made in the statement dated 10/02/2009 that he can read and

understand English but finds difficulty in writing English properly and hence he

requested the officer to write his statement in English as per his say and the

further endorsement for supporting the same "this confiscation I am giving in

my own handwriting" clearly shows that the detenue is very well conversant in

English, is nothing but for depriving him his right to file proper effective

representation at the earliest by supplying him grounds of detention and the

material in a language with which he is conversant.

                                                            7                          CWP 1838.2010

    7                In the same context the learned counsel placed reliance upon the




                                                                                               

decision of this court in the case of Shahnawaz Siraj Shaikh V/S State Of

Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition No.446 Of 2009 decided on 24th July

2009 and urged that in analogous situation this court has come to the conclusion

that such a subsequent endorsement made in the other statement recorded just

after 12 days indicates that detenue was dictated such an endorsement and he

had signed it. She urged that in the said case this court has come to the

conclusion that detenue had working knowledge of English where he could sign

or he could copy or even write when dictated, but he did not have sufficient

knowledge of English by which he could understand the documents which were

supplied to him and perhaps on the basis of such understanding he could not

make representation within Article 22 of the Constitution Of India and as such

his valuable right was defeated. She urged that in the said case due to said

reason this court was pleased to quash and set aside the Order of Detention. She

thus urged that it is difficult to digest that detenue who was explained his first

statement in Hindi by person recording the same started understanding material

furnished in English soon thereafter. She urged that detenue had copied down

endorsement supplied to him by the Investigating Officer below his further

statement dated 10/2/2009. The said writing also reveals that the detenue is not

knowing English. The detenue being supplied impugned order and grounds for

detention in English he was unable to make effective representation against the

order impugned at the earliest. Thus, the impugned order suffers from vice of

non-communication and is per se malafide. She urged that on the same analogy

of the reasons in the decision relied it will be necessary to come to the

conclusion that detenue in the present case also had no sufficient knowledge of

8 CWP 1838.2010

English to understand the material supplied to him in such a language and as

such the same had deprived him to make effective representation by

understanding material supplied.

8. Now before examining the submission canvassed by learned

counsel for the petitioner in light of the counter submissions made by learned

APP it will be necessary to examine the decision in the case of Shahnawaz

Siraj Shaikh(supra) upon which reliance was placed. The perusal of the said

decision and so also other decisions relied and referred therein upon the relevant

aspect reveals that the same are based upon the law pronounced by the Apex

Court in the case of Harikisan v/s State Of Maharashtra & Others reported

in AIR 1962 Supreme Court at pg 911 which still holds the field upon the

aspect of non furnishing of grounds and the material in the language to which

the detenue is well conversant. The reference to the relevant Paragraphs No 7 &

8 of the said decision and the relevant matters from the same runs as under.

"7 It has not been found by the High Court that the appellant knew enough English to understand the grounds of his detention. The High Court has only stated that "he has studied upto 7th Hindi Standard which is equivalent to 3rd English Standard". The High Court negatived the contention raised on

behalf of the appellant not on the ground that the appellant knew enough English, to understand the case against him, but on the ground, as already indicated, that the service upon him of the order and grounds of detention in English was enough communication to him to enable him to make his representation. We must therefore proceed on the assumption that the appellant did not know enough English to understand the grounds contained in many paragraphs as indicated above in order to be able to effectively to make his representation against the Order of Detention.............................................

                                                            9                   CWP 1838.2010

    9                The aforesaid observations are self eloquent to indicate that it will




                                                                                        

be necessary to determine whether the detenue had sufficient knowledge to

understand the language in which the grounds of detention and the material was

supplied to him to avail the opportunity provided to him under the provisions of

the constitution to make the representation against the order of detention. In the

decision relied and so also the decision of the Apex Court relied in the same

clearly reveals that the Order of Detention in both the cases were quashed in

view of such a material being not supplied to him in a language of which he had

sufficient knowledge to understand the said material for making the

representation against the Order of Detention passed. Hence it will be necessary

for us to determine whether in the case under consideration the detenue is

having enough knowledge of the language in which the material was supplied to

him i.e. of English. The same being question of fact, it will be required to be

examined on the basis of all the aspects relevant to the same and not merely on

the basis of similarity of the endorsement upon the statements in the case under

consideration and the case relied.

10. Now examining the submission canvassed from the aforesaid angle

merely because the first statement of the detenue recorded on 2/12/2008, i.e. on

the day on which he was for first time intercepted and arrested, is containing the

endorsements as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, by itself,

would not be ipso facto sufficient factor for accepting the submission that he

was not knowing enough English as canvassed. For, the investigating officer

who had come across the detenue for first time on the said day was bound to

accept and act upon the matters told to him by the detenue that " I cannot speak

10 CWP 1838.2010

and understand English". Having regard to the same such an endorsement made

by the investigating officer at the commencement of the statement or the further

endorsement made at the foot of statement after recording the same of

explaining the same in Hindi to the detenue by itself cannot be regarded as a

proof of a fact of detenue not knowing enough English. As a matter of fact the

same is indicative of the investigating officer having believed the word of

detenue and having acted upon the same and due to the same having explained

the statement recorded to him in Hindi. Needless to add that as observed earlier

such acts of investigating officer cannot be said to be a proof of detenue not

knowing English.

11. Be that as may be, now the reference to the second statement of the

detenue recorded on 10th February 2009 contains clear cut recital as pointed out

by learned APP, "I can read and understand English but find difficulty in

writing English properly therefore I request the officers to write my statement in

English as per my say." Similarly, pg 4 of the said statement also contains the

endorsement in the handwriting of the detenue, to the effect

"I shall produce purchased bill and my bank account details.

I have read my above statement

from pg no 1 to 4which I understood and confirm as correctly written as per my say.

I have given the above statements voluntarily without any force, threat or coercion.

This confirmation,I am giving in my own handwriting.

(Sd Tanveer 10/02/2009)"

                                                (Tanveer Ahmed Shabandri)





                                                            11                       CWP 1838.2010

12. Now examining the aforesaid endorsement and the date on which

the same was made and the material therein, it is difficult to countenance the

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ratio in the decision

of Shahnawaz Siraj Shaikh is attracted. Whereas, considering the matters

pointed out in Paragraph No 3 of affidavit in reply filed by Respondent No 2,

the plea taken by the Petitioner of lack of knowledge of enough English is

untenable. Needless to add that the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed

to point out any positive assertion made in the petition that the said statement

was written at the say or behest or under pressure of the Investigating Officer

or that the contents were provided by investigating officer (i.e. about the event

which had admittedly occurred in between detenue and the investigating officer

who had recorded his said statement). Furthermore, even inspite of the positive

assertion made by the Detaining Authority in Paragraph No 3 of the written the

petitioner has failed to counter the same by filing any rejoinder.

13. In the same context even considering the School Transfer Certificate

Annexure D, the same reveals the position as pointed by learned APP that the

detenue had studied the languages Urdu,English and Kannada as recorded in

Column No 14 thereof and so also having left the school in April 1987.

Considering the above aspects in proper perceptive, it militates against the plea

of the detenue that he was not knowing enough English. On the contrary, the

same substantiates that the detenue has enough knowledge of English.

Furthermore, even reference to the passport pointed out by APP, it reveals that

the detenue has signed in English. Besides, it is noticed that the detenue was a

frequent flier. Similarly considering the representation dated 28/06/2010 made

12 CWP 1838.2010

by the petitioner to which our attention was invited by learned APP also reveals

the same being in English and devoid of any endorsement of the same being

read over and explained to him. Similarly the letter dated 30/12/2008 written to

the superintendent of customs and the letter dated 24/12/2009 pointed out by

learned APP clearly supports his submission of the same being in English and

without any endorsement of being sent after explaining the same to the detenue.

These circumstances militate against the stand now taken of detenue not

knowing enough English.

14.

The learned APP has also placed reliance upon the decision of this

court in the case of Amar alias Amarsingh Gulabsingh Rathod v/s State of

Maharshtra reported in 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1671 for canvassing that once

the representation is made through the counsel grievance of detenue that

documents were not explained to him in his language does not survive. He has

justly relied on the decision in the case of Mustafa Ahmed Dossa v/s The

Joint Secretary,GOI & Ors reported in 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 1201 for

contending that after detaining authority has pointed out vide affidavit in reply

that representation was made by the detenue in English in absence of rejoinder

of the detenue denying the assertion regarding the knowledge of English and

Hindi languages there cannot be any substance in the ground of challenge that

he was conversant only with Urdu language. We do not deem it necessary to

make any more threadbare dilation about both the said aspects. As observed

earlier, the question whether detenue has no enough knowledge of English or

otherwise is a question of fact. After taking into consideration all the relevant

aspects pointed out by both the sides we are of the considered opinion that the

13 CWP 1838.2010

petitioner has failed to establish that the detenue had only workable knowledge

of English and was not having sufficient knowledge of the same to understand

the grounds and materials furnished to him in English to make representation as

provided in accordance with the law. Needless to add that the matters pointed

out by learned APP clearly establishes contrary position. Having regard to the

same the challenge made on the relevant count fails.

15. The learned counsel for the petitioner nextly by drawing the

attention to Paragraph No 11 of the Order of Detention and particularly to the

effect "I have considered your retraction dated 2/12/2008 and rebuttal by the

department on 12/01/2009 before passing the Detention order" contended that

the Order of Detention does not indicate that the Detaining authority considered

further retraction of detenue dated 24/01/2009 inspite of the same being placed

before the Detaining Authority. It was urged that the detaining authority was

bound to consider the same before passing the Order of Detention as the said

document was of vital nature which would have affected the mind of detaining

authority and would have come to conclusion that detenue has resiled from his

first statement. It was urged that such non consideration has impaired the

subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority as sham and unreal

and thus rendered the Order of Detention based on such subjective satisfaction

as per se malafide, null and void.

It was urged that such an averment made in Paragraph No 11 shows

that the detaining authority did not read and consider further generated

document and or the document placed before the detaining authority and merely

approved of or bodily adopted the draft grounds of detention if any, formulated

14 CWP 1838.2010

and prepared by the Sponsoring Authority and or by the subordinate authority

and put up before Detaining Authority as grounds of detention. Such a course if

adopted by Detaining Authority was impermissible in law, for issuing order of

detention and thus satisfaction purported to have been arrived at by the

Detaining Authority is sham and unreal and as such Order of Detention passed

on such a basis is malafide and ab-initio null and void and liable to be quashed

and set aside. It was urged that Paragraph No 5 of affidavit in reply submitted

regarding non consideration of further retraction is wholly silent about the

relevant aspects. It was urged that detaining authority itself was bound to

formulate the grounds as also to re-formulate the same after receiving further

grounds or material. The detaining authority having failed to do so before

issuing detention order, has rendered the same vulnerable and the same is liable

to be quashed and set aside. In the same context the reliance was placed upon

the decision in Criminal Writ Petition No 1058 of 1986 dated 13/03/1987 in

between (Mrs.) Savita Ramesh Jain v/s State of Maharashtra & Ors and the

decision in the case of State Of Maharshtra v/s Ramesh.K.Jain reported in

(1988) 1 Supreme Court Cases 597 and so also in the decision in the case of

Rakesh Sherpal Singh Rana v/s State Of Maharashtra and Ors reported in

2001 (1) Maharashtra Law Journal 495. It was urged that considering the

ratio in the said decisions upon the relevant aspect the order of detention is

liable to be quashed and set aside.

16. The said submissions were rightly countered by learned APP by

stating that though there can be no quarrel about the proposition stated in the

said decision the same are of no use for the petitioner to advance the case of the

15 CWP 1838.2010

present detenue. For, in the present case, the notings and the original file

reveals that first retraction statement was made on 2/12/2008 while second on

24/01/2009. The learned APP in the said context drew our attention to the

original papers which reveal that the generated documents were called on

21/03/2009 and the same were considered by detaining authority on 24/03/2009.

The said record further reveals that detaining authority had formulated the

grounds on 31/03/2009 and signed the same on 01/04/2009 and passed Order Of

Detention on 02/04/2009. The learned APP pointed that the documents

mentioned at Serial No 1 to 27 from the Annexure C i.e. the list of the

documents annexed with the letter dated 02/04/2009 issued by detaining

authority regarding the material relied; were received by detaining authority

alongwith the proposal while the documents at Serial No 28 onwards of the said

list were the generated documents. The learned APP drew our attention that the

document at Serial No 33 from the same was the second retraction statement

dated 24/01/2009. The learned APP thus rightly contended that all the said

documents were duly considered by detaining authority on 24/03/2009 and

thereafter formulated grounds on 31/03/2009 and thereafter having signed the

same on 01/04/2009 and having issued order on 02/04/2009. In no event the

detention order was passed after piecemeal consideration or without

consideration of entire documents, as is contended. He was also very much right

in urging that in view of the above, there was no question of reformulation of

grounds as the same were formulated keeping in mind all the materials placed

before the Detaining Authority, including the second retraction statement dated

24/01/2009. Since after carefully perusing the record we are satisfied that such a

position is emerging from the same. Thus, the challenge made on this count also

16 CWP 1838.2010

fails.

17. The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly contended by drawing

our attention to Paragraph No 8 of affidavit in reply that the representation of

the detenue dated 28/06/2010 was received by the jailor on the same day and by

the detaining authority on 30/06/2010;while parawise comments were called by

letter dated 01/07/2010. It was urged that the said parawise comments were sent

by sponsoring authority on 13/07/2010 and were received by detaining authority

on 14/07/2010. It was urged that the same reveals that there was 13 days delay

in receiving the parawise reply for considering the same. It was urged that in

view of the said undue delay, the Order of Detention is liable to be quashed and

set aside on that count and particularly failure of sponsoring authority in giving

any explanation for the same. The learned Counsel placed reliance upon the

decision in the case of Harish Pahwa v/s State of U.P & Ors reported in AIR

1981 Supreme Court 1126 and in the case of Rama Dhondu Borade v/s

V.K.Saraf, Commissioner Of Police reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court

1861 Paragraph 8, 20, 21 and 22 and in the case of Solomon Castro v/s State

Of Kerala reported in (2000) 9 Supreme Court Cases 561 Paragraph 3.

18. The aforesaid submissions were rightly countered by learned APP

by stating that legal requirement is only of considering the representation as

expeditiously as possible. He urged that question of there occurring a delay

much less undue delay is required to be considered in facts and circumstances

of each case. He urged that considering the record of the instant case upon such

a test the same does not reveal any delay having occurred as contended. By

17 CWP 1838.2010

drawing our attention to the original inward register of the office of sponsoring

authority the learned APP pointed out that the communication of the proposal

was received by sponsoring authority only on 8/07/2010. On the next day the

same was sent to COFEPOSA cell. The learned APP pointed out that 10th and

11th July, being Saturday and Sunday, were non working days. On 12th July the

parawise reply was finalised and approved and the same was forwarded to

detaining authority on 13/07/2010 which was received on 14/07/2010. He thus

urged that as such there was no delay much less any undue delay in sending

parawise reply. Such a position and particularly the sponsoring authority having

received the letter sent by the detaining authority through speed post calling

remarks on 8/07/2010 and after taking into consideration the further events

occurred and 10th and 11th July being holidays there appears no substance in the

submission canvassed and as such the challenge made on such a count is devoid

of any merit.

19. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also faintly attempted to

canvass that there was 34 days delay in executing Order of Detention after

detenue had surrendered before learned ACMM, Mumbai on 21/04/2010 an

intimation about the same was sent to detaining authority firstly through the

advocate's letter dated 30/04/2010 and even thereafter as stated herein above but

still detaining authority failed to serve the order upon the detenue till

03/06/2010. It was also attempted to canvass that inspite of attention of

detaining authority being drawn of detenue being taken into judicial custody the

failure of detaining authority to consider the aspect of serving the order of

detention also indicates non application on part of detaining authority. However

18 CWP 1838.2010

both the said points were given up by the learned counsel for the petitioner in

deference to the position about the relevant aspects and or the legal decisions

attempted to be relied being pointed to the learned counsel. Besides the

aforesaid no other point was canvassed on behalf of the petitioner.

20. For the reasons recorded in the preceding paragraph we are of the

considered opinion that the challenge thrown by the petitioner to the Order Of

Detention on the counts considered being sans merits, the petition deserves to

be dismissed and accordingly we dismiss the same.

          (P.D.KODE,J)                                                (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)