R. C. DEO SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition in the nature of habeas corpus. The petitioner has been ordered to be detained under S. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter to be referred to as COFEPOSA) by an order of the State Government dt. 12th Nov. 1981. The order could, however, be served on the petitioner on 17th April, 1984 when he came to Delhi to attend his sisters marriage. The grounds of detention were served on him the same day. He made a representation as usual but the same was rejected and on the report of the Advisory Board having been received the State Government confirmed the detention and ordered the petitioner to be detained for one year from the date of his arrest. ( 2 ) THE grounds of detention have been filed as Annexure-2 and contain two incidents on the basis of which the State Government felt satisfied that the petitioner was engaged in the abetment of smuggling and deserved to be detained in order to prevent from indulging in such activities. One of the grounds was that the Customs authorities arrested one Kirsane alias Lalman on 29th Mar. 1981 and recovered from his possession 150 wrist watches made in Japan valued at Rs. 60,000/ -. In his statement recorded by the Customs authorities he disclosed that the aforesaid watches had been handed over to him by the petitioner for delivery at Kanpur and that he had deposited Rs. 25000/- as security with the petitioner whose identity he disclosed by naming him as Joshi Ji, proprietor, Vishal Bhandar Bhairawa, Nepal. A copy of the statement made by Lalman before the Customs authorities was also supplied to the detenu along with the grounds of detention. The second incident related to 16th Apr, 1981 when one Ram Kishan alias Rajendra Prasad of Gorakhpur was arrested when he got down from Vaishali Express at Lucknow station and on a search being taken of his person the Customs authorities recovered 300 foreign made watches. The said Ram Kishan in his statement copy whereof was also supplied to the detenu with the grounds of detention, stated that those watches had been handed over to him by the petitioner for being delivered at Kanpur and Lucknow. The said Ram Kishan in his statement copy whereof was also supplied to the detenu with the grounds of detention, stated that those watches had been handed over to him by the petitioner for being delivered at Kanpur and Lucknow. In his statement Ram Kishan described the petitioner as Joshi Ji, Proprietor of the shop named Vishal Fancy Store. ( 3 ) THE petitioners detention has been challenged on various grounds. It was firstly contended that the petitioners identity has not been established by the statements of lalman and Ram Kishen as they refer to some Joshi Ji, Proprietor, Vishal Bhandar in one case and Vishal Fancy Store in another, whereas the petitioners name was Santosh Kumar and his alias name was toshi and not Joshi. It was argued that the papers establishing the identity of Joshi Ji with the petitioner, had not been supplied to the petitioner either with the grounds of detention or otherwise, and consequently the satisfaction, if any, of the State Government about the petitioners being engaged in smuggling activities was without basis and the detention order deserves to be quashed. ( 4 ) ANOTHER contention of the learned counsel was that Lalman connected with the first incident had also been detained under the orders of the State Government but on the report of the Advisory Board his detention had been revoked, and this fact had not been taken into consideration by the State Government while approving the order or confirming the detention of the petitioner on receipt of the report of the Advisory Board in this case. Some other contentions were also raised but they need not be referred to in detail as, in our opinion, the matter can be disposed of on the basis of the aforesaid two contentions. ( 5 ) TAKING the second plea first, it will appear that Lalman was certainly detained under S. 3 of the COFEPOSA and his detention was revoked on the report of the Advisory Board. It is admitted on behalf of the State that the fact of revocation of Lalmans detention was not taken into consideration by the State Government while confirming the petitioners detention and the reason assigned on behalf of the State is that the petitioners case was entirely different from that of Lalman. A similar matter came up before the Honble Supreme Court in Mohd. A similar matter came up before the Honble Supreme Court in Mohd. Shakeel Wahid Ahmad v. State of Maharashtra, (1983) 2 SCC 392 . In that case one Shamsi was earlier detained and his detention order was revoked on the report of the Advisory Board. When the detention order against Mohd. Shakeel Wahid Ahmad was passed, the State Government was in possession of the Advisory Boards report in Shamsis case and had knowledge of the consequent release of Shamsi from detention, but this fact was not taken into consideration while passing order of detention against Mohd. Shakeel Wahid Ahmad. It was held that this was a very material consideration which should have informed the State Government or the detaining authority of the circumstances in which Shamsi was ordered to be released and Mohd. Shakeel Wahid Ahmad was proposed to be detained. Whatever might have been the view of the detaining authority after consideration of Shamsis release order but the fact must have been considered by the detaining authority. In the instant case, however, when the detention order against Santosh Kumar the petitioner, was passed, the report of the Advisory Board or the release order in respect of Lalman was not available because that was a subsequent affairs but all the relief when the detention order in respect of the detention of Santosh Kumar was confirmed by the State Government, the Advisory Boards report and the release order in respect of Lalman were before the State Government and consequently they should have been taken into consideration even at that stage. This view was expressed by a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us was a member in the case of Aruna Shanker v. State of U. P. W. P. No. 6346 of 1983 (HC) decided on 30-4-1984 (reported in 1984 All LJ 1031 ). That being so, the detention order, in so far as it was based on the incident relating to Lalman, would be vitiated on the aforesaid ground. ( 6 ) THERE was, however, another instance on the basis of which also the petitioner was ordered to be detained and that was based on the recovery of smuggled watches from Ram Kishen. This was the second ground of detention. ( 6 ) THERE was, however, another instance on the basis of which also the petitioner was ordered to be detained and that was based on the recovery of smuggled watches from Ram Kishen. This was the second ground of detention. In view of the provisions of S. 5-A of the COFEPOSA even if one of the grounds was held to be valid, relevant and germane, the detention order could be upheld. That being so, this second ground has to be examined. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has, however, laid great stress on the point that the identity of the petitioner has not been established with the person named as Joshi Ji in the statement of Ram Kishen. That statement is annexed to the grounds of detention contained in Annexure-2. Ram Kishen on being arrested and on the smuggled watches having been recovered from him stated that these had been passed on to him by Joshi Ji who was carrying on business in the name of Vishal Fancy Store. The learned counsel has argued that there is no shop by the name of Vishal Fancy Shop in Bhairawa, Nepal and that the petitioner is not known a, Joshi Ji at all. In support of the contention the petitioner has filed on record a letter Annexure-5 purporting to be from the Mayor, Siddhartha Nagar (Nagar Panchayat) Nepal addressed to the Secretary, Home Department to the Government of U. P. Lucknow. The receipt of this letter along with the representation has been accepted on behalf of the State. This letter will disclose that there was no shop in Bhairawa in the name and style of either Vishal Bhandar or Vishal Fancy Store as stated by Ram Kishen or Lalman. It was further stated in the aforesaid letter that there were only two shops of similar names and they were Vishal Vastralaya and Vishal Fancy House. The Proprietor of Vishal Fancy House was said to be one Yas Sharma (who according to the State is brother of petitioner and joint owner of the firm) for which a taxation departments certificate on printed form was enclosed with the letter and is filed as Annexure No. 6 to the petition. The aforesaid letter will also disclose that Santosh Kumar was not the Proprietor of this firm. Finally, the letter also mentions that Santosh Kumars alias name was toshi. The aforesaid letter will also disclose that Santosh Kumar was not the Proprietor of this firm. Finally, the letter also mentions that Santosh Kumars alias name was toshi. The counter-affidavit filed by the State will indicate that the Government was satisfied on the basis of certain intelligence reports received by the Customs authorities that by Joshi Ji as stated by Ram Kishen was meant Santosh Kumar, the petitioner. What these intelligence reports were has not been stated. It is obvious that these intelligence reports must have been placed by the Customs authorities before the State Government when the detaining authority passed the orders, and if they were taken into consideration by the detaining authority in order to arrive at its satisfaction that Joshi Ji and Santosh Kumar were the names of one and the same person, copies thereof should have been supplied to the petitioner with the grounds of detention. If, on the other hand, these intelligence reports were not before the detaining authority, then there remained nothing on the record to connect Joshi Ji with the petitioner and in that event the satisfaction of the detaining authority would be based on virtually no evidence. In either case, therefore, the petitioners contention in this behalf must prevail. The reports were important piece of evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged Joshi Ji named by Ram Kishen. Learned counsel has referred to the case of Golam v. State of W. B. , AIR 1976 SC 754 where certain facts were mentioned in the history-sheet (bio-data) of the detenu and were taken into consideration by the detaining authority copies whereof were not supplied to the detenu and it was held that this was a material piece of supporting evidence which was taken into consideration by the detaining authority and yet not supplied to the detenu and consequently the detention order was held vitiated on that score. We are in the circumstances satisfied that a very material piece of evidence connecting Joshi Ji with the present petitioner had not been supplied to the petitioner who has consequently been deprived of making an effective representation to the State Government in order to establish that he was not the same person as Joshi Ji mentioned by Ram Kishen or that he had absolutely no concern with the smuggled watches recovered from Ram Kishen which according to Ram Kishen had been passed on to him by some Joshi Ji, Proprietor of Vishal Fancy Store which was a non-existent firm according to the Mayors certificate. On this ground alone, the petition deserves to be allowed. We need not refer to the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that there was no proximity between the incident complained of and the date of the detention order. So far as the gap between the date of detention order and its execution by arrest of the petitioner is concerned, we are, however, satisfied that the delay was attributable to the fact that the petitioner was a resident of Nepal and efforts were made to apprehend him but he could not be available in India before April 17, 1984 when he came to attend that marriage of his sister at Delhi. Some gazette notification for the arrest of the petitioner in pursuance of the detention order and even announcement of award was produced before us by the learned counsel for the State, but in view of what we have observed above regarding the failure of the State in establishing the identity of the petitioner with Joshi Ji, this point loses its importance. The petition is accordingly allowed and the detention order dated 12th Nov. 1981 (Annexure-1 to the petition) is quashed. The petitioner shall be released forthwith unless required to be detained in connection with any other case. Petition allowed. .