ORDER H.G. Mishra, J. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order of detention passed against Ramgopal Porwal, detained under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Act No. 52 of 1974), by the State Government, vide order No. F. No. 31-6./81 /X-l, Bhopal, dated 18th March, 1981, (Annexure-A) to the petition. Shortly put, the case of the petitioner Smt. Nirmala Porwal is that she is wife of the detenu Ramgopal Porwal against whom a detention order was passed under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act No. 52 of 1974 (for short, the COFEPOSA Act), by the State Government vide order No. F. No. 31-6/81/ X-I, dated 18-3-1981 (Annexure A). In pursuance of this order Ramgopal has been detained with effect from 15-4-1981. The petitioner avers that by her application dated 8-5-1981 (Annexure-B, to the petition) sent by registered post to respondent No. 1, she inter alia prayed for an interview by an Advocate with the detenu for the purpose of making a representation against the order of his detention. Thereafter the petitioner received a letter No. 237/Kalyan, Indore, dated 15-5-1981, directing her to contact respondent No. 3 in the matter. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent No. 3 dated 21-5-1981 (Annexure-D), wherein a prayer was made to the effect that interview for consultation with Shri I. C. Upadhyaya, Advocate, 47 Bada Sarafa, Indore, should be allowed. It has also been averred that the detenu had also made a prayer that he should be allowed to consult his Advocate for making a representation; but no such permission was given. Thus Ramgopal Porwal is being detained without affording him an earliest opportunity to make an effective representation to the State Government against the order of his detention. It is further contended that there is no live and proximate link between the grounds of detention alleged by the detaining authority and the avowed purpose of detention, namely, the prevention of smuggling activities; and that the order of detention is mala fide. Accordingly a prayer is made for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus ordering release of the detenu Ramgopal Porwal and for quashing the order of his detention (Annexure-A). Accordingly a prayer is made for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus ordering release of the detenu Ramgopal Porwal and for quashing the order of his detention (Annexure-A). The petition is resisted by the respondents, in essence, on the grounds that the contentions raised by the petitioner are not correct; that the petitioner had made representation to the Advisory Board, which has been rejected by the Board and the order of detention has been duly confirmed by the State Government; that neither the petitioner nor the detenu had submitted any application for interview with an Advocate in accordance with clauses 12 (2), 12 (H) and 12 (12) (b) of the M. P. Detention Order, 1971, which has been made applicable to case of detention under the COFEPOSA Act in exercise of powers vested in the State Government under section 5 thereof; that the respondents have not violated the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India; that all opportunity for making the representation as contemplated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution had been given to the detenu and that the challenge to the grounds on which the detention order is passed is misconceived. Accordingly, the order of detention is valid. From the documents brought on record by the parties, the factual position which emerges is as under : the petitioner acting for and on behalf of the detenu Ramgopal Porwal, her husband, sent by registered post an application on 8-5-1981 (Annexure-B) to the respondent No. 1 inter alia praying that interview with Shri I. C. Upadhyaya, Advocate, for consultation should be permitted to the detenu. Another application (Annexurc-R/t) was also sent by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1, which was received on 21-5-1981. In reply a D. C. F. No. 31-6/81/X-I, dated 6-6-1981 (Annexure-R/2) was sent by the State Government in the Home Department to the District Magistrate (respondent No. 3), wherein it has been stated inter alia that "provisions for interview are contained in the order (M. P. Detention Order of 1971) so far the request is for meeting his legal counsel is concerned, the detenu may be contacted in jail and from him in terms of para 12 (2) of the 'order' an application in the prescribed form may be obtained. As soon as he gives such an application you may permit the the interview with his legal counsel as desired. As soon as he gives such an application you may permit the the interview with his legal counsel as desired. Thereafter the matter may kindly be reported to us to obtain and communicate to you formal Government orders either under para 12 (2), 12 (11) or 12 (12) (b), as the case may be of the 'order'." After receiving the said D. O. Letter, the District Magistrate (respondent No. 3) in turn directed the Superintendent, Central Jail (respondent No. 4) to obtain from the detenu an application for interview with an Advocate for consultation. In connection with the D. O. Letter, (Annexure-R/2) respondent No. 1 wrote another D.O. Letter, dated 11-6-1981 (Annexure-R/6), wherein it has been inter alia stated that "in para 2 of the letter you had been advised to permit Shri I. C. Upadhyaya, Advocate, 47 Bada Sarafa, Indore, his counsel to meet the detenu for legal consultation." After receipt of this letter the detenu was informed by the respondent No. 4 of the same on 18-6-1981. Thereafter Ramgopal, the detenu made an application on 18-6-1981 (Annexure-R/7) under his own signatures containing the prayer for permitting an interview with an Advocate for consultation in the matter. During the course of arguments the respondents sought leave and were permitted to place on record the photostat copy of the letter dated 6-6-1981 containing an endorsement to the effect that the detenu was required to exercise his right to consult a legal adviser and his signatures were obtained in token of such intimation on 18-6-1981 by the Superintendent of Jail.-(Marked by us as Ex. R/x). From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the petitioner acting for and on behalf of the detenu and the detenu himself had made attempts for consultation in order that a representation may be made against the order of his detention to the State Government, but this right could not be exercised by the detenu on account of inaction on the part of the respondents. Now, the right of the detenu to consult a legal adviser of his choice for any purpose is not necessarily limited to defence in a criminal proceeding, but also for securing release from preventive detention or filing a writ petition or prosecuting any claim or proceeding, civil or criminal, is obviously included in the right to move with human dignity and also part of personal liberty and the detenu cannot be deprived of this right nor can this right of the detenu be interfered with except in accordance with reasonable, fair and just procedure established by a valid law. A prison regulation may, therefore, regulate the right of a detenu to have interview with a legal adviser in a manner which is reasonable, fair and just; but it cannot prescribe an arbitrary or unreasonable procedure for regulating such an interview and if it does so, it would be violative of Articles 14 and 21. This is what has been observed in para 10 of Francis Coralie's case Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi AIR 1981 SC 746 . Accordingly, the right of a detenu to consult a legal adviser of his choice extends to a situation of the present character and the detenu cannot be deprived of this right except in accordance with reasonable, fair and just procedure established by a valid law. A constitutional obligation is cast by Article 22(5) read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India to afford an opportunity to the detenu for making a representation against the order to the State Govt, after consultation with the legal adviser of his choice. In case this constitutional obligation does not appear to have been discharged by the respondents, as discussed above and the detenu has been deprived of his right to make a representation after consultation with the legal adviser of his choice. This rendered his detention and/or continued detention violative of the constitutional safeguards enacted by Article 22(5) read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This rendered his detention and/or continued detention violative of the constitutional safeguards enacted by Article 22(5) read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Now, relying on clauses 12; (2), 12(11) and 12 (12) (b) of the M. P. Detention Order 1971 (For short, the Order), which has been undis-putedly applied as conditions of detention by the State Government in exercise of powers vested under section 5 of the COFEPOSA Act, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that neither the petitioner nor the detenu had submitted any application in the prescribed form naming the Advocate whose advice was to be taken for making the representation. Accordingly, no fault can be found on the part of the respondents. Challenge to similar provisions regulating conditions of detention fell for consideration in the case of Francis Coralie (supra), wherein on the strength of provisions placed in Clause 3(b)(i) of the conditions laid down by the Delhi Administration under an order dated 23-8-1975 issued in exercise of powers conferred under section 5 of the COFEPOSA Act. Clause 3 (b)(i) provides inter alia thus: The conditions of detention in respect of classification and interview shall be as under: (a) * * * * (b) Interviews: Subject to the direction issued by the Administrator from time to time, permission for the grant of interviews with a detenu shall be granted by the District Magistrate, Delhi as under: (i) Interview with legal adviser : -Interview with legal adviser in connection with defence of a detenu in a criminal case or in regard to writ petitions and the like, may be allowed by prior appointment; in the presence of an officer of Customs/Central Excise/Enforcement to be nominated by the local Collector of Customs/Central Excise or Deputy Director of Enforcement, who sponsors the case for detention. In para 10 of the case of Francis Coralie (supra), it has been held by their Lordships as under: The same reasoning must also result in invalidation of sub-clause (i) of clause 3(b) of the Conditions of Detention Order, which prescribes that a detenu can have interview with a legal adviser only after obtaining prior permission of the District Magistrate, Delhi and the interview has to take place in the presence of an officer of Customs /Central Excise/ Enforcement to be nominated by the local Collector of Customs/Central Excise or Deputy Director of Enforcement, who has sponsored the case for detention................... A prison regulation may, therefore, regulate the right of a detenu to have interview with a legal adviser in a manner which is reasonable, fair and just, but it cannot prescribe an arbitrary or unreasonable procedure for regulating such an interview and if it does so, it would be violative of Articles 14 and 21. Now in the present case the legal adviser can have interview with a detenu only by prior appointment after obtaining permission of the District Magistrate, Delhi. This would obviously cause great hardship and inconvenience because the legal adviser would have to apply to the District Magistrate, Delhi well in advance and then also the time fixed by the District Magistrate, Delhi may not be suitable to the legal adviser, who would ordinarily be a busy practitioner and in that event from a practical point of view the right to consult a legal adviser would be rendered illusory. Moreover, the interview must take place in the presence of an officer of Customs /Central Excise/Enforcement to be nominated by the local Collector of Customs/ Central Excise or Deputy Director of Enforcement, who has sponsored the detention and this too would seek to be an unreasonable procedural requirement because in order to secure the presence of such officer at the interview, the District Magistrate, Delhi would have to fix the time for the interview in consultation with the Collector of Customs/Central Excise or the Deputy Director of Enforcement and it may become difficult to synchronise the time which suits the legal adviser with the time convenient to the concerned officer and furthermore if the nominated officer does not, for any reason, attend at the appointed time, as seems to have happened on quite a few occasions in the case of the petitioner, the interview cannot be held at all and the legal adviser would have to go back without meeting the detenu and the entire procedure for applying for an appointment to the District Magistrate, Delhi, would have to be gone through once again. We may point out that no satisfactory explanation has been given on behalf of the respondents disclosing the rationale of this requirement." Now, the provisions placed in Clauses 12(2), 12(11) and 12(12)(b) of the M. P. Detention Order, 1971, are similar to the aforesaid clause. They are reproduced as under: Clause 12. Interviews.- (2). No detenu shall be permitted to have an interview with any persons (other than a Police Officer) except on the written order of Government or of such officer as may be authorised by the Government in this behalf. * * * (11). In addition to the interviews permissible under the preceding provision of this paragraph, a detenu, may with the permission of the authority under whose order the detenu is detained, interview his legal adviser in connection with a pending or contemplated proceeding in a Court of Law to which the detenu is or will be a party. Not more than one such interview shall ordinarily be allowed in connection with a contemplated proceeding in a Court of Law before the proceeding is instituted. Not more than one such interview shall ordinarily be allowed in connection with a contemplated proceeding in a Court of Law before the proceeding is instituted. All such interviews shall take place on the premises in which the detenu is confined, and shall be subject to such conditions and restrictions as the Superintendent may consider necessary to ensure security and prevent the passing of unauthorised communications unconnected with the case relating to which the interview is granted. (12). * * * (a) * * * (b) If a detenu asks for permission to interview a legal adviser or any other person for assisting him in the submission of a representation as contemplated in section 8 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (No. 26 of 1971) he shall, in addition to the interview to which he is entitled under the foregoing provisions, be entitled to interview the legal adviser or other persons named by him in accordance with the conditions and the procedure laid down in sub-paragraph (11)." 11. In view of the principles laid down by their Lordship of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the right of the detenu to seek legal advise from an Advocate of his own choice cannot be successfully claimed to be regulated by the respondents by the provisions placed in clause 12 of the Order, the law laid down by the Supreme Court being the law of the land. Moreover, the legal position expounded therein as regards the validity of the Government's action will govern even the cases which are indistinguishable from the facts of that case. As such, the respondents were bound to act in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of Francis Coralie (supra). Accordingly, the respondents cannot be permitted to defeat the constitutional right vesting in the detenu of making a representation after seeking legal advise on the ground that he has not submitted an application in the prescribed form f"r seliciting the permission of the prescribed authority. Now, a distinction has to be made between the right to make a representation to the Government against an order of detention and a right to make a representation to the Advisory Board in the matter. The right to make a representation to the State Government is separate and independent of his right to make a representation to the Advisory Board. The right to make a representation to the State Government is separate and independent of his right to make a representation to the Advisory Board. The statutory safeguards with regard to the right of representation being made to and considered by the Advisory Board is enshrined in Article 22(4); whereas the right to get the earliest opportunity for making a representation against the order of detention and to get it considered by the Government is enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, consideration by the Advisory Board is an additional safeguard and not a substitute for consideration of the representation by the State Government. As such, nothing turns on the factum of making of a representation by the detenu to the Advisory Board and its rejection by it. One of the contentions put forth on behalf of the respondents was to the effect that the relief to which the detenu is entitled can at the most be to consultation with legal adviser of his own choice; and that too not in hearing of any authorities. This argument appears to be attractive on the face of it, but does not merit acceptance. In the case of Francis Coralie (supra), challenge to the validity of the order of detention had been made unsuccessfully order to submission of a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which led to the decision reported in Francis Coralie's case (supra). Accordingly, the mere relief which was claimed in that case by the petitioner was regarding consultation with an Advocate of her choice and it was in that context that challenge to the provisions relating to conditions of deteniion was thrown successfully. The principle which has been laid down in the case of Francis Coralie (supra) however, can be applied to the present situation also. There being constitutional obligation on the respondents to afford the detenu an earliest opportunity of making a representation to the State Government against the order of his detention, the detenu has a corresponding right in the matter and he can exercise this right after consultation with the legal adviser of his own choice. In this case, since the detenu has been deprived of such a right, his detention and continued detention is invalid. Accordingly this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of detention of Ramgopal Porwal, vide order Notfn. In this case, since the detenu has been deprived of such a right, his detention and continued detention is invalid. Accordingly this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of detention of Ramgopal Porwal, vide order Notfn. No. 31-6/81/X-l, dated 18th March, 1981 (Annexure-A) is hereby quashed and it is directed that Ramgopal Porwal, the detenu be set at liberty forthwith. There shall, however, be no order as to costs of this petition. Petition allowed.