JUDGMENT G.B. Singh, J. - Amar Nath and Sheo i Raj Singh petitioners have been detained under S. 3(1)(iii) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA Act) by the State Government vide its order dated 15-11-1988 with a view to preventing them from engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods. 2. The ground of detention is that on 1-10-1988 at about 9-00 a.m. the Customs Authorities of Gorakhpur asked three trucks coming on Tulsipur-Balrampur road from Tulsipur side, to stop 4 kilometers towards the north of Chakwa barrier. The trucks sped up and proceeded towards Balrampur at a high speed. The Customs authorities chased them by jeep and over-took them near Chakwa barrier. Amar Nath petitioner No. 1 was driving truck No. CIF 632 and Sheo Raj Singh petitioner No. 2 was found sitting on it as a cleaner. The driver and cleaner told them that gunny bags purchased from Gorakhpur are loaded on it. When the Customs authorities started removing the gunny bags, the truck driver and the cleaner stated that foreign goods are loaded in the truck and gunny bags were put over them to conceal their presence. Similar admissions were made by the drivers and cleaners of the other two trucks. The three trucks were, therefore, brought to the Customs Office, Gorakhpur and their goods were checked. From truck No. CIF 632 polyester yarn made of Korea worth Rs. 7,14,000/-electric torches made of China worth Rs. 71,240/-, bulbs of electric torches made of China worth Rs. 1,00,000/- and electric toys made in foreign worth Rs. 43,200/-, total Rs. 9,28,440/- were recovered. The truck driver and cleaner could not produce any receipt showing that customs duty had been paid on those goods and any licence authorising them to import such goods. The Customs authorities, therefore, took the goods in their possession and prepared their memo. On 2-10-1988 and 3-10-1988 the Customs authorities interrogated them. The petitioner admitted that the aforesaid goods were recovered from their truck and they had no receipt or licence regarding payment of customs duty and permission to import them. The petitioners were, therefore, charged for the offence under S. 135, Customs Act and detained in Central Jail,- Naini. On 2-10-1988 and 3-10-1988 the Customs authorities interrogated them. The petitioner admitted that the aforesaid goods were recovered from their truck and they had no receipt or licence regarding payment of customs duty and permission to import them. The petitioners were, therefore, charged for the offence under S. 135, Customs Act and detained in Central Jail,- Naini. Since they were trying to get themselves released on bail and they were likely to indulge into smuggling activities, their detention under section 3(1)(iii) of the COFEPOSA Act, therefore, became necessary. 3. The detention order was served on the petitioners on 17-11-1988 and the present writ petition has been filed against this preventive detention challenging it on various grounds. The parties exchanged affidavits and their learned counsel were heard at length. 4. The first point pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Collector Customs submitted a proposal for detention of the petitioners under COFEPOSA Act to the State Government on the basis of which the detention order had been passed but the copy of that proposal was not supplied to the petitioners and, thus, the petitioners have not been able to make effective representation. It has not been disputed on behalf of the opposite parties that the copy of the proposal for detention under COFEPOSA Act submitted by the Collector Customs was not supplied to the petitioners while serving the grounds of detention or thereafter. At the time of arguments learned Deputy Government Advocate produced copy of proposal for detention submitted by the Collector of Customs to the State Government and advanced two arguments in this connection. He firstly argued that the proposal for detention is not a relevant material and as such it was not necessary for the detaining authority to supply its copy to the detenus. The other argument is that it was a confidential communication and under Article 22(6), the detaining authority could withhold it in public interest. In our opinion, the arguments advanced by the learned Deputy Government Advocate cannot be accepted in the circumstances of the case. 5. Under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India the detenu has got two-fold right. First the detenu has a right to be served with the grounds of detention as soon as practicable. In our opinion, the arguments advanced by the learned Deputy Government Advocate cannot be accepted in the circumstances of the case. 5. Under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India the detenu has got two-fold right. First the detenu has a right to be served with the grounds of detention as soon as practicable. The second right of the detenu which is implicit under Article 22(5) is that he should be furnished with all the basic facts and materials which have been relied upon in the grounds of detention with reasonable expedition. Sub-section (3) of S. 3 of the COFEPOSA Act further provides that such grounds must be communicated to the detenu within 5 days and in exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded within 15 days of the detention. In the present case, there is no controversy regarding communication of the grounds within the prescribed time. Thus, there is no dispute between the parties regarding the compliance of the first part of the Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The second part of Article 22(5) providing for affording opportunity of making a representation against the order, carries with it the right to be supplied with the documents relied upon or referred to in the grounds for detention. If a document is a part of the materials which influenced the mind of the detaining authority in passing the detention order it can be safely said that it was relied upon 'by the detaining authority. The point to be seen, therefore, is if the proposal in question was relied upon by the detaining authority in passing the detention order. 6. In the counter-affidavit filed by Dr. R.S. Asthana, Joint Secretary, State Government, Uttar Pradesh the documents copies of which were supplied to the detenus have been mentioned. These papers do not contain the details of the followup action taken by the Customs authorities in order to ascertain that the petitioners and some others have been engaging into smuggling activities whereas they find place in the proposal submitted to the State Government for they detention of the petitioners and others. The proposal further contains conclusions drawn by the Customs authorities on the basis of the investigation made by them in connection with the aforesaid recovery and activities of the petitioners and others. The documents supplied to the petitioners do not contain such conclusions. The proposal further contains conclusions drawn by the Customs authorities on the basis of the investigation made by them in connection with the aforesaid recovery and activities of the petitioners and others. The documents supplied to the petitioners do not contain such conclusions. It is not disputed that the proposal was placed before the State Government and after considering it the, detention order was passed. In view of these facts there can be no room for doubt that the proposal is a relevant material and it was taken into consideration while arriving at the subjective satisfaction for passing the detention order. 7. It has been held in Jagdish alias Takiu v. State of U.P. and others, H.C. Writ Petition No. 1607 of 1987. D/d. 8.7.1987. and Harish Gandhi alias Kaku Mulzimal v. State of U.P., H.C. Writ Petition No. 16562 of 1988. D/d. 25.1.1989. that the proposal is a relevant and material documents and if its copy is not supplied, the detention becomes illegal. It may be mentioned here that copies of all the documents which are relied upon or which form the basis of the ground of detention must be supplied to the detenu along with the ground of detention. If the documents are not relied upon or do not form the basis of the detention order, but which are merely referred to in connection with the narration of the facts and if the detenu requests for the same, their copies should be supplied otherwise the detenu can raise the plea that in absence of such a document he has not been able to make an effective representation and, thus, prejudice has been caused to him. In the present case, the petitioners sent a registered letter on 29-11-1988 to the Home Secretary (Annexure No. 5) for supply of the copy of the proposal and other documents but in spite of this letter copy of the proposal was not supplied to them. It has been stated in para 14 of the counter-affidavit filed by Dr. R.S. Asthana, Joint Secretary that on the report of the Customs authority proposing detention of the petitioners that the petitioners are likely to be released on bail the detention order was passed. It has been stated in para 14 of the counter-affidavit filed by Dr. R.S. Asthana, Joint Secretary that on the report of the Customs authority proposing detention of the petitioners that the petitioners are likely to be released on bail the detention order was passed. It shows that the proposal of the Customs authority had been taken into account while passing the detention order and on its basis reference that the detenus are likely to be released on bail has been made in the ground of detention. It is, therefore, evident that after the demand for the supply of the copy of the proposal of State Government should have supplied its copy to the petitioners. In absence of such a copy of the proposal the detenus undoubtedly could not make effective representation. Thus, it can be inferred that non-supply of the copy of the proposal infringed the constitutional imperative and stultified the constitutional right of getting a reasonable opportunity for making an effective representation against the detention. Thus, the continuance of the detention has become illegal 8. Under Cl. (6) of Article 22 of the Constitution the detaining authority has been given an absolute discretion to withhold the facts which, according to the detaining authority, would be against the public interest to disclose. In such a case the Court has power to impose its opinion as to whether it is against the public interest or not to disclose any particular fact or facts but it must be shown prima facie that such a disclosure has been refused in the public interest. In the present case it has not been pleaded anywhere that copy of the proposal had not been given to the detenus as the detaining authority was of the opinion that disclosure of the facts mentioned in it were not in the public interest. However, at the time of arguments learned Deputy Government Advocate tried to impress upon the Court that the supply of the copy of the proposal would not have been in the public interest because it contains facts connecting other persons with the smuggling and if it had been disclosed the other persons would make it difficult to take them into custody. Even if it is assumed that supply of the copy of the proposal was refused with this object, it cannot be said in absence of any specific averment of public interest in the counter-affidavit, that its disclosure was refused under Article 22(6) of the Constitution. If the proposal had been submitted for detention of the petitioners, incriminating facts relating to other persons should not have been mentioned in detail in the proposal In other words separate proposals can be made about the persons to be detained taking necessary precautions if Customs authorities do not want that other persons involved in smuggling activities may not take advantage of the facts disclosed in the proposal. It is, therefore, clear that the detention order cannot be held to be valid in view of Cl. (6) of Article 22 of the Constitution. 9. Learned Deputy Government Advocate in order to show that the detention order could not be held invalid for non-supply of the copy of the proposal, relied upon two cases. One of them is Prakash Chand Mehta v. Commr. and Sect., Govt. of Kerala, 1985 SCC (Cri) 332 : AIR 1986 SC 687 . It has been held in this case that the Court's approach in such a case should be pragmatic and not highly technical. It has been further held in this case that strict adherence to procedure sacrificing greater social interest is not justified. They are general observations and do not appear of any help to the learned counsel for the opposite parties in view of a clear finding that the proposal is a relevant document. The other case is State of Rajasthan v. Shamsher Singh, 1985 SCC (Cri) 421 : AIR 1985 SC 1082 . It has been held in this case that the detenu is not entitled to a disclosure of the confidential source of information used in the grounds or utilised for making of the order. It was also held in this case that what is necessary for making of an effective representation is the disclosure of the material and not the source thereof. In this reported case copies of intelligence report were not supplied to the detenu. The grounds of detention were divided into two grounds. One ground was labelled as criminal activities and the other as extremist activities. Against extremist activities the aforesaid intelligence reports had been submitted. In this reported case copies of intelligence report were not supplied to the detenu. The grounds of detention were divided into two grounds. One ground was labelled as criminal activities and the other as extremist activities. Against extremist activities the aforesaid intelligence reports had been submitted. The facts by way of accusations were detailed but copies of the reports as such were not furnished. On the basis of these facts and the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution the aforesaid observation was made. In the present case, all the facts relating to the detenus mentioned in the proposal have not been given in the grounds. In the reported case the intelligence reports were submitted prior to the submission of the proposal for detention. However, in the present case the detention order has been made on the basis of the proposal made. Thus, the observations made in this case also do not render any assistance to the learned Deputy Government Advocate. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the detention has become illegal for non-supply of relevant material can, therefore, be accepted. 11. The second point pressed by the Learned counsel for the petitioners is that the papers relating to the fact that they are likely to be released on bail were not placed before the detaining authority and as such the detention order stands vitiated. We do not find any substance in this contention. The petitioners have themselves filed copies of the application for bail, affidavits filed in that connection and the copy of the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad on the application for bail. These documents themselves show that the petitioners were making serious efforts for getting themselves released on bail. It has been mentioned in Para 14 of the counter-affidavit of Dr. R.S. Asthana, Joint Secretary that the Customs authority proposing the detention has placed necessary facts before the detaining authority that the petitioners were likely to be released on bail. It has not been stated anywhere in the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners that they were not making efforts for getting themselves released on bail. It cannot, therefore, be said that the detaining authority mentioned making of efforts by the detenus for getting themselves released on bail without any basis. 12. It has not been stated anywhere in the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners that they were not making efforts for getting themselves released on bail. It cannot, therefore, be said that the detaining authority mentioned making of efforts by the detenus for getting themselves released on bail without any basis. 12. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that some affidavit filed before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate was not placed before the State Government and this fact has been admitted in Para 6 of the second supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, by Shri Gopal Trivedi, U.D.A. Confidential Section, State Government, Uttar Pradesh. At the time of arguments learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out as to how 1 the aforesaid affidavit could influence the mind of the detaining authority in their favour. It is true that the pendency of a criminal case against the person sought to be detained must be brought to the notice of the detaining authority as it is a material circumstance. It is also true that the detaining authority must be made aware of the fact that the detenu is in Jail and efforts are being made on his behalf to get him released on bail, before passing the detention order. But these circumstances do not appear of any help to the learned counsel for the petitioners. The facts brought on record show that the detaining authority had come to know all this. The detaining authority being aware of the criminal prosecution may come to a finding that the ordinary law of land is not enough to prevent the petitioner from indulging into prejudicial activities. The circumstances of the case and the material placed before the detaining authority could bring him to such a conclusion and it cannot, therefore, be held that the detention order was passed without any application of mind. 13. The papers relating to bail even if not supplied to the detenus could not cause any prejudice to them in making effective representation. The reason is that they were papers of the petitioners themselves. When an application for bail is made or affidavit is filed in support of it, copies are generally retained by the counsel for the applicant. 13. The papers relating to bail even if not supplied to the detenus could not cause any prejudice to them in making effective representation. The reason is that they were papers of the petitioners themselves. When an application for bail is made or affidavit is filed in support of it, copies are generally retained by the counsel for the applicant. There is nothing on record showing that such copies were not retained by the petitioners counsel and as such the supply of their copies was necessary. It has been observed above, that at the time of arguments learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out that any such document could influence the mind of the detaining authority in favour of the petitioners. It has been observed in Rahul Sharma v. Union of India, H. C. Writ Petition No. 4100 of 1988, D/d. 30.8.1988 that non-supply of the copies of the bail application to the detenu petitioner does not cause any prejudice to him. In view of all this it is clear that the second argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot prevail. 14. Since it has been observed above, that proposal for detention is a relevant document and non-supply of its copy to the detenus caused prejudice to them in making effective representation against their detention and, thus, the continuance of the detention has become illegal, the writ petition succeeds. 15. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioners shall be released forthwith unless required to be detained in connection with some other case.