[Cites 34, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Rama Raju vs Joint Secretary on 19 December, 2025

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

                        PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

                          AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

     WRIT PETITION (HABEAS CORPUS) NO.77 OF 2025


BETWEEN:

SMT. RAMA RAJU
W/O NARASIMHA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT No.56/3
DOLLARS COLONY
SANJAY NAGAR
RMV EXTENSION
BENGALURU-560 094
                                           ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. KARIAPPA N.A., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.    JOINT SECRETARY
      COFEPOSA
      GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
      MINISTRY OF FINANCE
      DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
      CENTRAL ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE BUREAU
      6TH FLOOR, "B" WING
      JANPATH BHAVAN, JANPATH
      NEW DELHI-110 001
      REPRESENTED BY ANUPAM PRAKASH

2.    GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
      BY CENTRAL ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE BUREAU
      GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
                                 2




     MINISTRY OF FINANCE
     DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
     6TH FLOOR, "B" WING
     JANPATH BHAVAN, JANPATH
     NEW DELHI-110 001
     REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL

3.   SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
     CENTRAL PRISON
     PARAPPANA AGRAHARA
     BENGALURU-560 100
                                               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. KULOOR ARVIND KAMATH, ASGI WITH
    SRI. SHANTHI BHUSHAN H., DSGI FOR R1 & R2;
    SRI. THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R3)

     THIS    WP(HC)   IS   FILED    UNDER    ARTICLE    226    OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (a) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DECLARING THE DETENTION OF
SRI. TARUN KONDURU RAJU S/O SRI. NARASIMHA RAJU, BY
ORDER F.No.PD-12001/02/2025-COFEPOSA, DATED 22.04.2025
(ANNEXURE-"A") AS ILLEGAL AND VOID ABINITIO AND ETC.


     THIS WP(HC) HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT      ON   01.12.2025       AND     COMING     ON     FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:



CORAM:   HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
            and
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                                    3




                          CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

This Writ Petition Habeas Corpus is filed by Smt. Rama

Raju, petitioner and mother of the detenue - Shri. Tarun

Konduru Raju seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus to declare the

detention order dated 22.04.2025, issued under Section

3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and

Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ("COFEPOSA

Act" for short), as illegal.

2. We have heard Shri. Hashmath Pasha, learned

Senior Counsel as instructed by Shri Kariappa N.A. learned

Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri.

Kuloor Arvind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General

of India along with Shri. Shanthi Bhushan H, learned Deputy

Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondents

No.1 and 2 and Shri. Thejesh P, learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent

No.3.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya, was intercepted on

03.03.2025 at the Green Channel at Kempegowda

International Airport, Bengaluru, while attempting to exit

without declaration. A personal search revealed 17 foreign-

marked gold bars weighing approximately 14,200.53 grams

concealed on her person. Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya was

arrested on 04.03.2025. Her voluntary statements were also

recorded. Further, voluntary statements recorded reveals

that she was a Director in five firms including 'Vira

Diamonds Trading LLC, Dubai'. Her phone, laptop and other

electronic devices were also voluntarily surrendered and

subjected to examination. Customs declaration dated

06.03.2025 and 25.03.2025 in the name of M/s.Vira

Diamonds Trading LLC for 2.8 kilograms of gold to the

United States of America and 1.5 kilograms of gold to

Thailand were retrieved from the laptop of Smt.

Harshavardinin Ranya.

4. During the analysis of the data, the involvement

of the detenue herein was noticed and the voluntary

statements of Smt. Harshavardini Ranya were also obtained

pointing to such involvement. Thereafter, the detenue's

voluntary statement was recorded on 08/09.03.2025 under

Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 ('Customs Act' for

short). Further statements were recorded thereafter also on

09.03.2025, 10.03.2025 and 12.03.2025 as well. Further, a

search was conducted on 11.03.2025 in the detenue's

residence at Hyderabad. Thereafter, on the basis of the

materials made available, the detention order dated

22.04.2025 was passed and was served on the detenue on

23.04.2025. The said order was challenged by the detenue

in Crl.P.No.5432/2025 before this Court which was

dismissed by order dated 26.04.2025. The grounds of

detention and relied upon documents were also served to

the detenue on 27.04.2025.

5. Respondent No.1 furnished the grounds of

detention and the list of relied upon documents to the

detenue. Respondent No.1 alleges that the detenue has

engaged in activities amounting to abetment of smuggling

under Section 2(39) of the Customs Act read with Section

2(e) of COFEPOSA Act, and has shown a general propensity

to assist in smuggling activities to the detriment of

Government revenue and national security. It is on this

basis that the preventive detention order was passed.

6. It is stated in the detention order that the

detenue had business associations with Smt. Harshavardhini

Ranya in Dubai, jointly engaging in a precious metals and

diamond trading venture under the name "M/s. Vira

Diamonds." After being removed from the partnership in

December 2024, the detenue continued to engage in gold

dealings with her and traveled to Dubai on 03.03.2025 to

collect gold for delivery to Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya.

7. It is alleged that the detenue misused his U.S.

citizenship to avoid travel restrictions and assisted in earlier

smuggling operations, abetting the smuggling of

approximately 14.213 kilograms of gold valued at Rs.12.56

Crores, involving customs duty evasion amounting to

Rs.4.83 Crores, punishable under Sections 135(1)(a)(i)(A) &

(B) of the Customs Act.

8. The detenue appeared before the Directorate of

Revenue Intelligence ("DRI" for short) pursuant to summons

on 09.03.2025 and was arrested and remanded to DRI

custody until 14.03.2025. The detenue's bail application

before the Special Court for Economic Offences was

dismissed on 19.03.2025 and a subsequent application

before the City Civil and Sessions Court in

Crl.Misc.No.2598/2025 was rejected on 07.04.2025. His

further challenge in Crl.P.No.5432/2025 before the this

Court was dismissed on 26.04.2025. Subsequently, by letter

dated 18.06.2025, the Central Government transmitted the

detenue's representation to the Advisory Board. Even after

receipt of the Advisory Board's opinion dated 02.07.2025,

the Central Government issued a Confirmatory Order on

16.07.2025. After hearing on 16.07.2025, the Advisory

Board rejected the representation by order dated

16.07.2025.

9. Since the investigation was not completed within

the statutorily prescribed period, the detenue filed an

application under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 which was allowed on 20.05.2025

subject to stringent conditions. Due to the subsistence of the

detention order dated 22.04.2025, the detenue continues to

remain in custody.

10. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel

appearing for the petitioner that the respondent has wrongly

accused the detenue of helping in smuggling under Section

2(39) of the Customs Act and Section 2(e) of COFEPOSA

Act, and has incorrectly labelled him as a habitual offender

though he had no previous record of smuggling before his

arrest on 09.03.2025.

11. It is further contended that these allegations arise

solely from the purported statement of a co-accused and

that the detenue has been unnecessarily made a scapegoat.

Further, the allegations of false Dubai customs declarations

and of handling or transporting foreign-origin gold are

unsubstantiated by any material.

12. It is further contended that the detaining

authority relied on several Dubai Customs declarations to

conclude that large quantities of foreign-origin gold had

been smuggled into India with the involvement of the

detenue. However, these declarations were not included in

the list of relied upon documents and were never supplied to

the detenue. Since the authority treated these declarations

as material evidence while the detenue was denied access to

them, he was prevented from examining them. The non-

supply of such crucial documents affects his ability to make

an effective representation and therefore vitiates the

detention order.

13. It is further submitted that the detenue was

shown audio/video files through a pen drive on a laptop

while in prison. The said pen drive is marked as Sl.No.51 in

the relied upon documents. The contention raised by the

senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the pen

drive was corrupted and unusable, thereby, making the

supply of documents incomplete.

14. It is further contended that certain relied upon

documents, such as, the statement of Smt. Harshavardhini

Ranya recorded on 04.03.2025 and other materials forming

part of the record, were in Kannada. The detenue does not

understand Kannada. However, no translated copies were

provided to the detenue. Therefore, the failure to provide

translations renders the detention illegal.

15. It is also submitted that only on 11.06.2025 the

detenue through Prison Authorities of Central Prison,

Bangalore submitted a representation, with a request to

release him from detention. However, the Prison Authorities

delayed the submission of the representation to the

detaining authority. The representation is said to have been

placed before the Advisory Board by the detaining authority.

It is contended that respondent No.1/detaining authority has

not considered the said representation before forwarding it

to the Advisory Board.

16. It is further contended that the Advisory Board

has not called the detenue to give him a fair and reasonable

opportunity of personal hearing regarding the detention

order and to explain his non-involvement in the alleged

offence, which is in violation of Article 22(5) of the

Constitution of India. It is further contended that though

the detaining authority states that the representation

preferred by the detenue was placed before the Advisory

Board, the said representation is not adverted to and no

order was passed on the said representation either by the

detaining authority or the Advisory Board.

17. It is further contended that the detenue has not

carried and brought any gold or dutiable goods to India at

any time and he had no knowledge about the possession,

carriage and concealment of the seized gold bars on the

person of Smt. Harshavardini Ranya. It is contended that

even if she had carried the seized bars till the stage of

declaration before Customs Authorities of Bangalore at the

Kempegowda International Airport, no offence was

committed by the detenue. There is no role of detenue in

Smt. Harshavardini Ranya bringing 14213.50 grams of gold

bars to India on 03.03.2025 and even if she had brought

and if she had declared before Customs Authorities, no

offence would have constituted against her. Therefore, the

allegation is of evasion of customs duty by Smt.

Harshavardini Ranya. It was her individual decision not to

declare but this was not within the knowledge of detenue.

18. It is further contended that the allegation levelled

against the detenue is only of abetment. In the instant

case, the act of abetment to commit offence under Section

135 of Customs Act does not constitute against the detenue.

When the nature of allegation against detenue is not

constituting any offence under Section 135 of the Customs

Act, then there cannot be a basis for passing detention order

under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act because the

requirement to pass an order of detention, there must be an

act of criminal offence which was of such a propensity that if

not prevented, will result in a prejudicial act to the

conservation of foreign exchange. Since Smt. Harshavardini

Ranya was in judicial custody, the question of abetment on

the part of the detenue does not arise.

19. It is further contended that the alleged past act

does not amount to abetment and there is no material

showing the likelihood of commission of prejudicial acts in

the future. This degree of subjective satisfaction on the part

of detaining authority is missing, therefore, the detention

order is illegal and an abuse of power. To this effect reliance

is placed on the case of Ameena Begum v. Union of India

reported in (2023) 9 SCC 587. The relevant portion reads

as follows:-

"28. In the circumstances of a given case, a constitutional court when called upon to test the legality of orders of preventive detention would be entitled to examine whether:

28.1. The order is based on the requisite satisfaction, albeit subjective, of the detaining authority, for, the absence of such satisfaction as to the existence of a matter of fact or law, upon which validity of the exercise of the power is predicated, would be the sine qua non for the exercise of the power not being satisfied;

28.2. In reaching such requisite satisfaction, the detaining authority has applied its mind to all relevant circumstances and the same is not based on material extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute;

28.3. Power has been exercised for achieving the purpose for which it has been conferred, or exercised for an improper purpose, not authorised by the statute, and is therefore ultra vires;

28.4. The detaining authority has acted independently or under the dictation of another body;

28.5. The detaining authority, by reason of self-

created rules of policy or in any other manner not

authorised by the governing statute, has disabled itself from applying its mind to the facts of each individual case;

28.6. The satisfaction of the detaining authority rests on materials which are of rationally probative value, and the detaining authority has given due regard to the matters as per the statutory mandate;

28.7. The satisfaction has been arrived at bearing in mind existence of a live and proximate link between the past conduct of a person and the imperative need to detain him or is based on material which is stale;

28.8. The ground(s) for reaching the requisite satisfaction is/are such which an individual, with some degree of rationality and prudence, would consider as connected with the fact and relevant to the subject- matter of the inquiry in respect whereof the satisfaction is to be reached;

28.9. The grounds on which the order of preventive detention rests are not vague but are precise, pertinent and relevant which, with sufficient clarity, inform the detenu the satisfaction for the detention, giving him the opportunity to make a suitable representation; and

28.10. The timelines, as provided under the law, have been strictly adhered to.

29. Should the Court find the exercise of power to be bad and/or to be vitiated applying any of the tests noted above, rendering the detention order vulnerable, detention which undoubtedly visits the person detained

with drastic consequences would call for being interdicted for righting the wrong."

20. It is further submitted that the Central

Government through letter dated 18.06.2025, forwarded the

representation of the detenue with para-wise comments, to

the Advisory Board. Before this, it was incumbent upon the

detaining authority and the Central Government to consider

the representation of detenue independently by each of

them.

21. It is contended that owing to established

precedents on preventive detention, particularly that the

satisfaction of the detaining authority must be based on

relevant, proximate and rational material, the non-supply of

relied upon documents vitiates the order, and that failure to

comply strictly with the statutory requirements of Section

3(1) of COFEPOSA Act renders the detention order invalid.

22. The learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioner places reliance on the following judgments:-

• Smt. Gracy v. State of Kerala and Another, reported in (1991) 2 SCC 1;

• Vijay Kumar G. v. Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, by Order dated 20.11.2025 passed in Writ Petition Habeas Corpus No.103 of 2025;

• Amreen v. Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, by Order dated 23.10.2025 passed in WP(HC) No.87/2025;

• Smt. Jayamma v. Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, reported in ILR 2019 KAR 1543;

• K.M. Abdulla Kunhi and B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union of India and Others, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 476;

• Mortuza Hussain Choudhary v. State of Nagaland and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 502;

• Jaseela Shaji v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 53;

• Pramod Singla v. Union of India and Others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 374;

• Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2025) 4 SCC 476;

• Ankit Ashok Jalan v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2020) 16 SCC 127;

• Mr. Keneeth Jideofor v. Union of India, Ministry of Finance and Revenue and Others, reported in ILR 2020 KAR 2127;

• Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India and Others, reported in (1995) 4 SCC 51;

• Shabna Abdulla v. Union of India and Others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2057;

• Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117;

• Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others, reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799;

• Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254;

• Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576;

• Rajesh Gulati v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and Another, reported in 2002 4 Crimes (SC) 86;

• Gimik Piotr v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2010 85 AIC 168;

• Dharaneesh Raju Shetty v. Union of India, reported in 2018 Supreme(Del) 720;

• Pooja Batra v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 296; and

• State of Maharashtra and Others v. Zubair Haji Qasim, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 792.

23. It is therefore submitted by the learned senior

counsel appearing for the petitioner that none of the alleged

grounds satisfy the statutory ingredients required for

preventive detention and that the entire order stands

vitiated for non-application of mind and violation of

constitutional safeguards.

24. In response to the grounds raised by the

petitioner, the learned ASGI raises the following

contentions:-

The material gathered during investigation

demonstrates the existence of a well-orchestrated,

commercially motivated, transnational smuggling syndicate

operated by the detenues over a sustained period. The

detaining authority carefully examined the voluminous

material, including statements recorded under Section 108 of

the Customs Act, documents seized from the residences and

business premises, forensic extraction of mobile phones, and

statements of various facilitators who enabled the syndicate.

On this basis, the authority recorded its subjective

satisfaction that the detenues possess both the propensity

and the potentiality to continue engaging in prejudicial

smuggling activities unless preventively detained.

25. Section 1(2) of the Customs Act states that the

Act extends to the whole of India and even to offences

committed outside its territory. In the present case, a

significant part of the planning, procurement and

documentation was carried out in the foreign jurisdiction of

Dubai. Section 2(39) of the Customs Act defines smuggling

in relation to goods as any act or omission which renders

such goods liable to confiscation under Sections 111 or 113

of the Customs Act. The definition is intentionally wide,

covering not only physical carriers but also organizers,

financiers, handlers and facilitators who orchestrate the

process from behind the scenes, ensuring to capture every

component of the illicit chain. Section 111(d) of the

Customs Act states that any goods imported or attempted to

be imported contrary to prohibition under any law are liable

for confiscation. Under Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules, 2016,

gold other than ornaments is prohibited as per Item 5 of

Annexure I. Gold bars and biscuits are therefore prohibited

goods. The deliberate and repeated import of gold bars and

biscuits by the detenues falls squarely within this

prohibition. Section 135 of the Customs Act prescribes

punishment for evasion of duty and related offences. It

forms part of the statutory framework that marks

clandestine import activities as serious offences, thereby

reinforcing the preventive purpose of COFEPOSA Act.

Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act extends to preventive

detention not only to persons who directly smuggle goods,

but also to those who abet, transport, conceal, keep, deal

with, or harbor persons engaged in smuggling.

On the ground of non-supply of the pen drive in

Sl.No.51 of the relied upon documents, the learned ASGI

submitted that contents of the pen drive were shown to the

detenue on a laptop on 27.04.2025 and the detenue has

given an acknowledgement to that effect.

26. The learned ASGI appearing for the respondents

contended that the detention order is legal and justified,

having been passed after due consideration of the materials

placed by the sponsoring authority. It is contended that the

detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction

based on cogent material showing that the detenue was a

key member of a well-organised smuggling syndicate

involved in bringing foreign-origin gold from Dubai into

India. It is submitted that the detenue along with co-

detenue, Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya, were actively and

habitually involved in smuggling activities, including making

false declarations before Dubai Custom Authorities and

physically transporting gold into India on multiple occasions.

27. It is submitted that the investigation revealed

that the detenue had made repeated trips between India

and Dubai, often around the same time as his co-detenue,

and played a vital role in procuring, carrying, and delivering

smuggled gold. The detenue exploited his U.S. citizenship by

travelling without visas to several destinations for smuggling

operations.

28. It is further submitted that the material gathered

clearly shows that between March 2024 and March 2025,

approximately 99 kilograms of foreign-origin gold was

smuggled by the syndicate, with the detenue playing a

significant role. This demonstrates the detenue's potential to

continue engaging in smuggling, thereby justifying

preventive detention.

29. It is submitted by the learned ASGI that the

contents of the pen drive were shown to the detenue on a

laptop while in custody. The prison authorities did not permit

the possession of the pen drive inside jail hence, after

viewing the contents of the pen drive, the detenue gave a

written acknowledgement directing the Sponsoring Authority

to hand over the said pen drive to his brother Shri. Varun

Raju or Shri. Ravi Kumar. Accordingly, Shri. Varun Raju was

given the pen drive against a signed acknowledgement

dated 28.04.2025. Therefore, the ground relating to non-

supply of the pen drive does not stand.

30. It is further submitted that the ground related to

two Kannada pages No.1010 and 1011 of the relied upon

documents is untenable because they were attached as only

backing sheets to protect the main document from

mutilation. The detaining authority did not rely upon these

two pages while passing the order of detention. Therefore,

the relied upon documents have been furnished in full.

31. It is further contended that the detenue was

informed that he could make representations to the

detaining authority, Central Government and the Advisory

Board through the jail authorities. The representations were

considered within a statutory time.

32. It is also contended that a legal distinction

between punitive custody in a criminal prosecution and

preventive detention under COFEPOSA Act must be made.

Even if the detenue is in judicial custody or bail has been

considered, preventive detention may still be required to

prevent future smuggling activities. The sponsoring

authority and the detaining authority are said to have

followed all constitutional, statutory, and procedural

safeguards, and the respondents deny all contentions of

non-application of mind, non-supply of relied upon

documents, or procedural lapses.

33. The learned ASGI appearing for the respondents

places reliance on the following judgements:

• Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India, reported in

(2005) 8 SCC 276; and

• State of Maharashtra and Ors v. Bhaurao Punjabrao

Gawande, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 613.

34. Having considered the contentions advanced, we

notice that the main contention raised by the writ petitioner

is that the detenue's involvement in the repeated instances

of smuggling are not even spoken of in the detention order

and that he had committed no offence whatsoever under the

Customs Act. However, we notice from the specific recitals

in the detention order and the statement of objections filed

by the ASGI that the specific involvement of the detenue in

the well planned smuggling operations has been clearly

adverted to and the materials relied on in support of such

contentions have been made available to the detenue in the

instant case. In the above view of the matter, we are of the

opinion that the contention that the detenue had no

involvement in any of the offences cannot be accepted and a

challenge to the detention order on that ground has to

essentially fail.

35. It is to be noticed that the subjective satisfaction

of the detaining authority is not justiciable before the

Constitutional Courts and the necessity to keep a person

under preventive detention is clearly left to the subjective

satisfaction of the detaining authority. The question

therefore would be whether there has been any procedural

error in the detaining authority coming to the said subjective

satisfaction. Though several arguments have been raised by

the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, no

such error in the arrival at the subjective satisfaction has

been pointed out in the instant writ petition. Further no

instance of non-adherence to the time lines as provided in

the COFEPOSA Act is pointed out. The fact that the detenue

is in imprisonment and that his bail application had been

dismissed is specifically noticed in the detention order.

Further, the fact that he is an important participant in the

smuggling syndicate and that the retention of his passport

would not deter him from engaging in further smuggling

activities has also been clearly recorded.

36. The further contention raised by the detenue that

his representation preferred before the detaining authority

has not been considered by the detaining authority, is also

not tenable in view of the fact that the representation was

received by the detaining authority after passing the order

of detention. The learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioner attempts to contend that since there is a power of

revocation of the order of detention, the said representation

should have been considered by the detaining authority.

However, we notice that the power of revocation of

detention orders is specifically vested with the Central

Government and not with the detaining authority under

Section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act.

37. Section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act, reads as

follows:-

11. Revocation of detention orders.--

(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 21 of

the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), a

detention order may, at any time, be revoked or

modified-- (a) notwithstanding that the order has

been made by an officer of a State Government, by

that State Government or by the Central

Government;

(b) notwithstanding that the order has been made

by an officer of the Central Government or by a

State Government, by the Central Government.

(2) The revocation of a detention order shall not bar

the making of another detention order under

section 3 against the same person."

38. We also notice that the detaining authority before

whom a representation was filed after the order of detention

was passed, had forwarded the representation to the

Advisory Board and the representation submitted before the

Central Government has been duly considered and answered

by the Central Government.

39. In the above factual situation, we are of the

opinion that the contentions raised by the petitioner with

regard to the non-passing of an order by the detaining

authority on his representation cannot vitiate the order of

preventive detention.

40. Having considered the contentions advanced and