Order The order of the Court was made by W.P. No. 2416 of 1983 is for issue of a writ of habeas of corpus in order to release the detenu K. T. Mohan, who has been detained under section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and prevention of smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, W. P. No. 2634 of 1983 is for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus for the release of the detenu G. Hayath Batcha, who has been detained under section 3(1)(i) of the Act. Since the transaction in which both the detenus have been taken into custody is the same, we are dealing with both the writ petitions by a common order. 2. As far as the facts of these two cases are concerned, on 25th July, 1983, around 1-00 a.m. Karaikal customs officials intercepted a jeep bearing registration number MSW 3558 parked near the Tamil Nadu Tourism Department Travellers Rest House at Poompuhar and on seeing the customs officials, the three occupants of the jeep took to their heels in a bid to escape. They were chased and apprehended. They are, the detenu in W.P. Mo. 2416 of 1983, the detenu in W. P. No 2634 of 1983 and one Rajamanickam. The customs authorities found a steel plate in between the rear seats and that plate contained 131 packets of opium wrapped with polythens paper and tied with jute rope. The opium was found to weight 123, 500 Kgs., and it is valued at Rs. 1,50,750/-. It was seized for action under the Customs Act, 1 962 on the reasonable belief that they were attempted to be illicitly exported to Sri Lanka. The jeep was also seized for action under the Customs Act, 1962, since the case was used for concealing and transporting the opium. 3. The detenu in W.P. No. 2416 of 1983 has given a detailed statement wherein he has referred to his previous associates such as Ramamurthi and Kandu Thevar, who were instrumental for smuggling goods for the purpose of exporting them to Sri Lanka on prior occasions, Throughout these transactions, according to the statement of the detenu K.T. Chandramohan, the detenu in W.P. No. 2634 of 1983 was his close associate. After referring to these prior smuggling activities, the detenu K.T. Chandramohan has in clear terms submitted that the customs authorities have seized the opium from the secret chamber of the jeep on 25-7-1982 around 1-00 a.m. at Poombuhar and that they apprehended both the detenus along with one Rajamanickam. 4. The statement of Hayath Batcha, who is the detenu in W.P. No. 2634/83, completely corroborates the version of the detenu K.T. Chandramohan in all its detail and that Hayath Batcha further submitted that he drove the vehicle carrying opium from Bangalore to Poombuhar shore for illicit transport to Sri Lanka and rendered assistance to the detenu K.T. Chandramohan for such illicit transport from 1976 onwards and that he used to receive Rs. 1000 for each such trip. 5. Rajamanickam, who was also apprehended along with the two detenus on 25-7-1982, admitted the services rendered by him to the detents since 1979 in the illicit transport of opium to Sri Lanka by providing his Kattumalam. He also stated that the detenus met him in the year 1979 and sought his assistance for providing Kattumaram to load the opium into the Sri Lanka Craft which will call at the sea at Poombuhar. According to him, he was offered Rs. 200/- per trip. Agreeing to this remuneration, Rajamanickam submitted, that he helped the detenus twelve times since 1979 in such illicit export of opium. Rajamanickam also corroborated the fact that the detenu Hayath 3atcha met him on 23-7-1982 and requested him to be in readiness for illicit transport of opium on the night of 24-7-1 982. There is corroboration in the statement of Rajamanickam regarding the seizure and apprehension of these persons by the customs officials as spoken to by both the detenus in their statements. 6. Apart from these basic facts such as the statements given by these three persons, the customs authorities have also checked up Alima Lodge at Vlayuram and Tamil Nadu Tourism Lodge at Poombuhar and were able to get particulars regarding the stay of the detenus in these lodges on 23-7-1982, and 24-7-1982. The customs authority has also checked up the false number plate given 1o the jeep and ascertained that registration number MSW 3558 affixed on the seized jeep was allotted to Standard Car and the same is in a garage in Madras under repairs. 7. The customs authority has also checked up the false number plate given 1o the jeep and ascertained that registration number MSW 3558 affixed on the seized jeep was allotted to Standard Car and the same is in a garage in Madras under repairs. 7. From the abovesaid material and basic grounds, the detaining authority, after observing “According to your own deposition dated 26-7-1982, coupled with the depositions of Hayath Batcha of Salem and Rajamanickam of Poombuhar, it is clear that you have been regularly indulging in transporting and smuggling opium out of India, in a big way. Unless you are detained under the Cofeaposa Act, 1974 you will not be prevented from smuggling out opium”. ordered the detention of K.T. Chandramohan alias K.T. Mohan under section 3(1)(i) of the Act. 8. Questioning the abovesaid detention order, representation was made by the detenu K.T. Chandramohan both to the Government and to the advisory Board. In both these places, he was not able to succeed in his attempts. Hence, W.P. No. 2416 of 1983 has been filed. 9. Mr. K.A. Panchapagesan, learned Counsel for the detenu in W. P. No. 241 6/83 submitted that relevant and material grounds were not placed before the detaining authority and as such, the detention order is vitiated. According to him, the detaining authority ought to have looked into the Statements of Ramamurthi and Kandu Thevar before it had passed the order of detention in both the cases. A number of decisions were cited by him to substantiate his contention. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Rajamanickam, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that basic and relevant materials have been taken into consideration by the detaining authority before ordering the detention of these detenus and that the failure to look into the statements of Ramamurthi and Kandu Thevar will not in any way effect the detention order, since de hors these statements, the detaining authority has found that the detenus have to be detained under the Act. 11. As far as the detenu in W. P. No. 2416/83 is concerned, it is clear from the detention order that the detaining authority has taken into consideration the statements of the detenu K.T. Chandramohan, detenu Hayath Batcha and Rajamanickam. 11. As far as the detenu in W. P. No. 2416/83 is concerned, it is clear from the detention order that the detaining authority has taken into consideration the statements of the detenu K.T. Chandramohan, detenu Hayath Batcha and Rajamanickam. The detaining authority has not taken into consideration any other statement to come to the conclusion that the detenu has to be detained under the Act in order to prevent him from further smuggling opium. The detenu has not retracted from his statement when the matter was pending before the detaining authority. Neither before the Magistrate nor at the time of the representation before the Advisory Board the detenu K. T. Chandramohan said anything about the statement recorded by the customs authorities on which the present detention order is based along with the statements of Hayath Batcha and Rajamanickam. Even Hayath Batcha and Rajamanickam have not retracted from their statements. No doubt, in the statements of the detenu K.T. Chandramohan and Hayath Batcha, there is reference to the prior smuggling activities and their association with one Ramamurthi and Kandu Thevar. Apart from Ramamurthi and Kandu Thevar, we are able to see that the detenu had association with one Akilan of Sri Lanka origin. As regards the statements of Shamsuddin, Proprietor of Alima Lodge and G. Kaliaperumal, watchman, and the Reception Officer of the Tourist Bungalow, Poombuhar, we do not find any objection to the same nor any protest as regards the identification of the photograph of the detenu and the witnesses identifying that the man in the photograph is Rajagopal as stated by the detenu Chandramohan when he took up rooms in these lodges. Hansmukh v. State of Gujarat, Hansmukh v. State of Gujarat (1981) 1 S.C.R. 353 : (1981) S.C.C. (Crl.) 387: (1981) MLJ. (Crl.) 172: (1981) 2 S.C.C. 175 : (1981) 1 S.C.J. 250: (1980) Crl. L.J. 1286: A.I.R. 1981 S. C. 28 it has been held that the basic facts are integral parts of the grounds and they must, according to section 3 (3) of the Act, be communicated to the detenu, Such basic facts should be communicated within fifteen days or as expeditiously as possible. L.J. 1286: A.I.R. 1981 S. C. 28 it has been held that the basic facts are integral parts of the grounds and they must, according to section 3 (3) of the Act, be communicated to the detenu, Such basic facts should be communicated within fifteen days or as expeditiously as possible. If the grounds communicated are elaborate and contain all the basic facts but are not comprehensive enough to cover all the details or particulars of the basis facts, such particulars also must be supplied to the detenu if asked for by him. 12. As far as the present case is concerned, it is clear from the detention order that the grounds communicated are elaborate and contain all the basic facts on which the detention order was passed. It is also clear that the detention order was based upon the statement of the detenu Hayath Batcha and Rajamanickam and none else as far as W.P. No. 2416 of 1983 is concerned. No further particulars were called for by the detenu K.T. Chandramohan. In our view, the other particulars referred to by Mr. K.A. Panchapakesan, such as the statements of Ramamurthi and Kandu Thevar, have nothing to do with the basic ground on which the present detention order is passed. 13. In Kughiram Das v. The State of West Bengal Kughiram Das v. The State of West Bengal (1975) Crl.L.J. 446: (1975) S.C.C.(Crl.) 435: (1975) 2 S.C.C. 81 (1975) 2 S.C.R. 832 : A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 550 it is stated thus: “The Court can certainly require the detaining authority to produce and make available to the Court the entire record of the case which was before it……If there is before the District Magistrate material against the detenu which is of a highly damaging character and having any relevancy with the object of detention, and proximity with the time when the subjective satisfaction forming the basis of the detention order was arrived at, it would be legitimate for the Court to infer that such material must have influenced the District Magistrate in arriving at his subjective satisfaction and in such a case the Court would refuse to accept the bald statement of the District Magistrate that he did not take such material into account and excluded it from consideration. Continuing, the Supreme Court has observed thus: The only requirement of communication is in regard to the basic facts and materials which constitute the grounds of detention and if there are ‘other particulars’ besides the grounds of detention which are communicated to the State Government, they need not be disclosed to the detenu …. the nondisclosure of it to the petitioner did not have the effect of invalidating the approval of the State Government to the order of detention …….Therefore, in a case where the material before the District Magistrate is of a character which would in all reasonable probability he likely to influence the decision of any reasonable human being, the Court would be most reluctant to accept the ipso dixit of the District Magistrate that he was not so influenced and a fortiori, if such material is not disclosed to the detenu, the order of detention would be vitiated, both on the ground that all the basic facts and materials which influenced the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate were not communicated to the detenu as also on the ground that the detenu was denied an opportunity of making an effective representation against the order of detention’. 14. As far as the facts of that case before the Supreme Court wore concerned, the Supreme Court on the non-disclosure of certain materials such as the history sheet, held, “There was, therefore, no material before the District Magistrate, other than the three incidents set out in the grounds of detention which went into the formation of the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate and which ought, therefore, to have been communicated to the petitioner”. The Supreme Court further held: “Now in the present case, as already pointed out above, the material from the history sheet, which was not disclosed to the petitioner, did not from part of the grounds of detention on which the order of detention was made by the District Magistrate and approved by the State Government, but merely constituted ‘other particulars’ communicated by the District Magistrate to he State Government under section 3, sub- section (3). There was, therefore, no obligation on the District Magistrate or the State Government to disclose this material to the petitioner and the non-disclosure of it to the petitioner did not have the effect of invalidating the approval of the State Government to the order of detention. There was, therefore, no obligation on the District Magistrate or the State Government to disclose this material to the petitioner and the non-disclosure of it to the petitioner did not have the effect of invalidating the approval of the State Government to the order of detention. Applying the abovesaid principle to the present case, it is clear that the detaining authority bases its conclusion only on the three statement, given, by the Detenu K.T. Chandramohan, Haysth Batcha and Rajamanickam and none also. The other particulars in the statement given by the detenu himself are particulars which are not basic grounds for the purpose of passing the order of detention. It is also clear that such particulars were not asked for by the detenu and as such, the order of detention is not vitiated on this ground.” 15. Saraswati Seshagiri v. State of Kerala Saraswati Seshagiri v. State of Kerala (1981) Crl. L.J. 628: (1981) 2 S.C.C. 224 : (1981) S.C.C. (Cri) 411: A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 11(55 cited by Mr. Rajamanickarn, learned Public Prosecutor, clearly states that even on a single Solitary Act, the detaining authority can come to the conclusion on the facts and circumstances of that particular case that the detenu will repeat his activities in future also. In that decision, the Supreme Court also observed that the past act of the person in the circumstances, might be an index of his future conduct. Inasmuch as the detaining authority had already materials which, in our opinion are the basic facts necessary for passing the order of detention, we, sitting in High Court, cannot interfere with such an order detention. 16. In Hemlata v. State of Maharashtra Hemlata v. State of Maharashtra (1982) Crl.L.J. 150: (1981) 4 S.C.C. 647 : (1982) S.C.C. (Crl) 16: (1982) 1 S.C.R. 1028 : A.I.R. 1982 S.C.8, the Supreme Court held than if the formalities under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution had been complied with, the Court cannot examine the materials before it and find that the detaining authority should not have been satisfied on the materials before it and detain the detanu under the Preventive Detention Act, for, that is the function of an appellate Court. As laid down in Ashadevi v. K. Selvaraj Ashadevi v. K. Selvaraj (1979) Crl.L.J. 203: (1979) S.C.C. (Crl) 262: (1979) 1 S.C.J. 538: (1979) 2 S.C.R. 215: (1979) MLJ. As laid down in Ashadevi v. K. Selvaraj Ashadevi v. K. Selvaraj (1979) Crl.L.J. 203: (1979) S.C.C. (Crl) 262: (1979) 1 S.C.J. 538: (1979) 2 S.C.R. 215: (1979) MLJ. (Crl) 441: A.I.R. 1979 S. C. 447 we are of the view that (Here) all the materials which would have influenced the mind of the detaining authority have been placed before the detaining authority, and the detaining authority applied its mind only on the such statements of the detenu, Hayath Batcha and Rajamanickarn. That has been made clear by the detention order wherein in paragraph 5, the detaining authority has stated thus: “According to your own deposition dated 26-7-1982 complied with the deposition of Hayath Batcha of Salem and Rajamanickarn of Poombuhar, it is clear that you have been regularly indulging in transporting and smuggling of opium out of India in a big way. Unless you are detained under the COFEAPOSA IN1974COFE01, 1974, you will not be prevented from smuggling out opium”. Thus, it is clear that the basic and relevant facts have been placed before the detaining authority and the detaining authority has not taken into consideration any other material except those basic: detenu K.T. Chandramonan. We do not find any flan in the order of detention passed against K.T. Chandramonan (alias) K.T. Mohan and as such, W.P. No. 2416 of 1983 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 17. As regards the detenu in the other action W.P. No. 2634 of 1933 viz. Hayath Batcha, we do not think it necessary to separately discuss once over again the facts enumerated in the ‘detention order passed against K.T. Chandramohan (alias) K.T. Mohan, and also on other evidence passed the order of detention against Hayath Batcha. In paragraph 4 of the detention order, unlike the words found in paragraph 5 of detention order passed against K.T. Chandramohan (alias) K.T. Mohan, the detaining authority has stated as follows: “From your own admission, corroborated by the version of Thiru K.T. Chandramohan and Rajamanickarn, Poompuhar, and other evidences cited above, it is clear that you have been regularly transporting the opium from the interior to the seashore and arrange for its export of India, closely associated yourself with Thiru K.T. Chandramohan, Unless you are detained under the COFEPOSA IN1974COFE01, 1974, you will not be prevented from engaging yourself from such activities”. The other evidences mentioned in this paragraph, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, refer to the statements of K.T. Chandramohan, Hayath Batcha, Rajamanickam, Chackravathi and Shamsuddin, which have been referred to in the order of detention itself. But we have perused other references made in the statements given by K.T. Chandramohan, Hayath Batcha and Rajamanickarn, which will go to show that statements of some other witnesses have been taken into consideration in order to establish the smuggling activities carried on by this detenu) Hayath Batcha. (The other evidences mentioned in paragraph 4 of the detention order,) according to Mr. K.A. Panchapakesan, learned Counsel for the detenu, (will refer to those statements also and as such, the failure to place these statements before the detaining authority and before the Government will definitely vitiate the order of detention. The learned Public Prosecutor correctly stated that it is also possible to argue as submitted by Mr. K.A. Panchapakesan. Inasmuch as the detaining authority has taken the other evidences apart from the statements of K.T. Chandramohan, Hayath Batcha and Rajamanickam, we are of the view that there is a failure on the part of the authority concerned to fulfil the conditions enshrined under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution.) Hence, we are of the view that (the order of detention passed against Hayath Batcha, who is the detenu in W.P. No. 2634 of 1983, cannot stand. 18. In the circumstances, W.P. No. 2634 of 1983 is allowed and the detenu Hayath Batcha is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. There will be no order as to costs. R.S.R. ----- Writ Petition No. 2634 of 1983 allowed other petition dismissed.