B. C. JAUHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus bas been filed by Harbans Singh who bas been detained by an order dated 19. 3. 84 under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974. ( 2 ) IT appears that the applicant was arrested on 21. 2 84 in Gonda under Section 135 of the Customs Act. From Gonda be was transferred to Naini Central Jail and thereafter, to Central Jail, Agra where he is currently detained. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of detention on various grounds some of which have been taken by way of an amendment application to the writ petition. The grounds taken in the amendment application have been allowed by us to be canvassed before us. We shall deal with the grounds urged before us seriatim. ( 4 ) THE first ground that has been urged against the order of detention is that the detaining authority did not apply its mind that since the petitioner was already in jail. he should continue to remain in jail. In para 13 of the petition it is urged that the detention order was passed in March 1984 when the petitioner was already in custody from 21. 2. 1984 and the order of detention is illegal because the respondents have not applied their mind to this aspect. In para 10 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents it was said that the allegations in para 13 of the petition were incorrect and misleading and the Collector of Customs. Patna had enumerated in the proposal sent to the State Government that the petitioner was arrested and produced before C. J. M. Gonda on 24. 2. 1984 and had been remanded to custody by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Gonda on the same day and had been order to be transferred to Central Jail. Naini. Allahabad. It was further said in the affidavit that the petitioner was making efforts for being released on bails he was moved an application for bail in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. Allahabad on 14. 3. 84 and thus he was ordered to be detained preventively as he was likely to be released on bail. In the rejoinder- affidavit filed by the petitioner to the counter. Allahabad on 14. 3. 84 and thus he was ordered to be detained preventively as he was likely to be released on bail. In the rejoinder- affidavit filed by the petitioner to the counter. affidavit filed by the respondents it was denied that any proposal was sent to the State Government, that the petitioner was arrested and was in jail. It was said that the affidavit of Sri R. S. Singh who was only an Upper Division Assistant and has no personal knowledge in the matter is worthless and in the absence of any affidavit of the detaining authority that it was aware that the petitioner was in Jail. it must be held that the State Government did not apply its mind to the fact that the petitioner was in jail. With regard to bail it was said that no order was passed on the bail-application. ( 5 ) WE have considered the arguments advanced on this ground and feel ourselves unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As regards facts there does not appear to be any dispute. The petitioner was a driver of Tourist Bus No. DEP 3882 when be was intercepted by the officers of Custom Department, Balrampur. Gonda and was arrested on 21. 2. 84 and upon the search and seizure of the bus a huge quantity of contraband articles for which the petitioner had no authority under the Customs Act was recovered. He was, therefore, taken into custody and sent to jail and was remanded from time to time until the 19th of March, 1984 when this order of detention was passed. In the meantime the petitioner had applied for bail while he was in jail and this order of detention was clamped on him. The argument of the learned counsel is that the detaining authority had no knowledge that the petitioner who was already in jail was likely to be released. It was elaborated that if a person is already in jail by reason of his detention in jail. he is prevented from indulging in any pre-judicial activities and consequently the detaining authority must further apply its mind that there is a compelling necessity for his detention when he is already detained in jail. We have considered the argument and feel that it has no force. he is prevented from indulging in any pre-judicial activities and consequently the detaining authority must further apply its mind that there is a compelling necessity for his detention when he is already detained in jail. We have considered the argument and feel that it has no force. We have also seen the records of the case which shows that the order of detention in this case was passed by the Chief Minister and under Article 166 of the Constitution of India the executive action of the Government of a state has to be expressed to be taken in the name of Governor and further it provides that the orders are to be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules. In the instant case Annexure A has been filed alongwith the counter affidavit which goes to show that the Joint Secretary is empowered to sign the order and to authenticate the same. In the instant case Sri R. S. Asthana who has communicated the orders of detention to the petitioner Annexures Tet and D are signed and authenticated by the Joint Secretary. We have seen the file of the case which goes to show that there was information with the State Government in the file of the petitioner that the petitioner was in jail and that he had moved an application for bail and from this it can be inferred that there was a legitimate apprehension that he could be released on bail. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that in this case the affidavit was filed by an Upper Division Assistant and not by Sri R. S. Asthana. We have considered the argument raised and feel that in the context of the present case the argument urged by the learned counsel is without any substance. In the present case the order of detention was passed by the Chief Minister and the file passed through various officials and officers in the hierarchy of the State Government. Sri R. S. Singh who has filed the first affidavit was an Upper Division Assistant in the Confidential Section. Sri Gopal Trivedi who filed the second supplementary counter-affidavit was also an Upper Division Assistant in the Confidential Section. Sri R. S. Singh who has filed the first affidavit was an Upper Division Assistant in the Confidential Section. Sri Gopal Trivedi who filed the second supplementary counter-affidavit was also an Upper Division Assistant in the Confidential Section. Both have in their affidavits, stated that they were fully acquainted with the facts of the case and they are looking after the file pertaining to the petitionert detention at various levels. With regard to this allegation in the counter-affidavit of Sri R. S. Singh the rejoinder-affidavit mentions that the Upper Division Assistant has no personal knowledge and his affidavit should be ignored. With regard to the allegations in the-counter- affidavit of Sri Gopal Trivedi where he has said that he has perused the supplementary affidavit and is in a position to make a reply, the supplementary rejoinder-affidavit is that it needs no reply. Both these affidavits have been sworn on the basis of record and the record has been made available to us for our inspection. From the record as we have said above there is an indication that the Government was aware of the detention in jail of the petitioner as well as his application for bail As regards the argument of the learned counsel, that the affidavit should be filed by Sri R. S. Asthana or by some senior officer, the matter has been set at rest in a recent case of Supreme Court namely State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh In para 26 of the judgment all the cases were reviewed and it was held that the failure to furnish a counter-affidavit of the District Magistrate who passed the order of detention, was an impropriety though in most of the cases it may not be of much consequence, especially if there was no allegation of mala fides against the detaining authority. In that case the detention order was passed by the District Magistrate and it was held that if the counter-affidavit of detaining officer was not furnished, the counter-affidavit must be sworn by some responsible officer who personally dealt with or processed the case in the Government Secretariat or submitted it to the Minister or other officer duly authorised under the rules of business framed by the Governor under Art. 166 of the Constitution to pass orders on behalf of the Government in such matters. In the instant case we have already indicated above that both Sri R. S. Singh and Gopal Trivedi were Upper Division Assistants and were responsible officials who had dealt with the case of the petitioner at all its stages and consequently, there is no infirmity as far as the quality of the affidavits is concerned. ( 7 ) IN view of what we have stated above, we feel that the allegation that the detaining authority was not aware of the moving of the bail-application is not correct. The order must, therefore, be held to have been passed with an awareness that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail and if he is so released, he might indulge in unlawful activities and consequently, his detention was imperative. ( 8 ) THE next point urged by the learned counsel was that in this case the Collector of Customs, Patna wrote to the State Government and the copy of that letter was not supplied to the petitioner. The allegations regarding this are contained in para 4 of the supplementary affidavit. It is to the effect that the copy of the proposal of the Collector of Customs, Patna which was sent to the State Government and which was taken into account by the detaining authority and which influenced the mind the detaining authority was not supplied to the petitioner. In the supplementary counter-affidavit it was said in reply that the proposal of the Collector of Customs, Patna contained secret informations relating to the smuggling activities of some persons and these communications were strictly confidential and it was not in public interest to divulge the contents of these secret informations to the petitioner. It was further said that the Government examined the matter and on the basis of material strictly relevant for the purposes of detention of the petitioner the satisfaction of the Government was arrived at. I was further said that it was not necessary for the Government to communicate every sheet of papers which the Government received from the Collector of Customs, Patna irrespective of fact that the particular paper has formed the basis of order of detention or not. The only reply in the rejoinder-affidavit is that the counter-affidavit has been sworn by a clerk and not by an officer. There is no controversion as far as the facts are concerned. The only reply in the rejoinder-affidavit is that the counter-affidavit has been sworn by a clerk and not by an officer. There is no controversion as far as the facts are concerned. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of Babu Ali v. Supdt. District Moradabad2 wherein it was held that where a police report had gone a long way in influencing the detaining authority in forming his. subjective satisfaction in passing the detention order it was incumbent upon him to make the copy of the said report available to the detenu. In not doing so the detenu was deprived of his statutory right to make, at the earliest, an effective representation. Reliance in this case was placed in the earlier Supreme Court decision reported in A. I. R. 1975 S. C. 550. The answer to this argument is also covered by 1984 case referred to above. It was held after considering various cases as below: The interpretation of Art. 22 (5) consistently adopted by this Court, is, perhaps, one of the outstanding contributions of the Court in the cause of human rights. The law is now well settled that a detenu has two right under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution, (1) To be informed, 35 soon as may be, of the grounds on which the order of detention is based, that is, the grounds which led to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, and (2) to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention, that is, to be furnished with sufficient particulars to enable him to make a representation which on being considered may obtain relief to him. It was further held that the particulars mentioned in the ground of detention should comprise the entire gamut of facts which it was necessary for the respondents to know in order to make a well informed representation. Applying the law to the facts of the present case it would be found that the petitioner detenu has filed Annexures C and D and Annexure D contains the entire facts that his bus was intercepted on 21-2-84 at 7 a. m. and it was searched and huge quantity of contraband was recovered and that his statements were recorded. Applying the law to the facts of the present case it would be found that the petitioner detenu has filed Annexures C and D and Annexure D contains the entire facts that his bus was intercepted on 21-2-84 at 7 a. m. and it was searched and huge quantity of contraband was recovered and that his statements were recorded. and they were all taken into consideration in passing the order of detention in order to prevent him from repeating such activities in future. The letter of the Collector of Customs regarding which the State Government claimed a privilege, mentioned the smuggling activities of other smugglers also and consequently, it was not proper to supply a copy of that information to the petitioner because it might thwart the detection of smugglings in nurture. The petitioner was only entitled to the basic facts and material on which reliance was placed for his detention and consequently to make an effective representation against his detention. It is not every piece of evidence which has to be supplied to the petitioner. What is to be supplied as held earlier were basic facts leading to the detention of the petitioner with a view to enable him to make an effective representation. In the instant case, therefore, the material supplied was adequate and the non-supply of the letter of the Collector of Customs does not invalidate the order of detention. ( 10 ) THE third argument raised was that there was delay in consideration of the representation. For this the learned State counsel showed us the me and submitted that no representation was ever made by the petitioner. Since this ground is baseless there is no need to comment on it. ( 11 ) THE last ground urged was that the petitioner is a poor driver who has nothing to do with the smuggling activities and this was the solitary incident which was relied on by the detaining authority and consequently, the detention is bad and uncalled for. The short answer to this question is furnished by the case of Mrs. Saraswathi Seshagiri v. State of Kerala and another. It is the satisfaction of the detaining authority which is supreme in the matter and there is nothing to prevent him from assessing that even a solitary incident is sufficient to warrant a detention so that the detenu may not repeat his prejudicial and unlawful activities in future. Saraswathi Seshagiri v. State of Kerala and another. It is the satisfaction of the detaining authority which is supreme in the matter and there is nothing to prevent him from assessing that even a solitary incident is sufficient to warrant a detention so that the detenu may not repeat his prejudicial and unlawful activities in future. ( 12 ) GIVING the matter our anxious consideration we feel that this petition for habeas corpus has no force and deserves to be dismissed. In the result the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .