The facts which have given rise to this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are, in brief, as follows. On 25.6.75, the President in the exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 352 of the Constitution declared that a grave emergency had existed whereby the security of India was threatened by internal disturbances. Thereafter, on 27.6.75, in the exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 359, the President declared that the right of any person including a foreigner to move any Court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Articles 14,21 and 22 of the Constitution and all proceedings pending in any Court for the enforcement of the above-mentioned rights would remain suspended for the period during which the Proclamations of Emergency made under clause(1) of Article 352 of the Constitution was in force. It may also be noted here that, on 8.1.86, there was a notification that in the exercise of powers conferred by clause (I) of Article 359 of the Constitution the President declares that the right of any person to move any Court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Article 19 of the Constitution and all proceedings pending in any Court for the enforcement of the above mentioned rights would remain suspended for the period during which the Proclamations of Emergency made under clause (1) of Article 352 of the Constitution was in force. The petitioner (since deceased) was detained under the COFEPOSA Act, 1974, during the period of emergency under order dated 22.9.75 of the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Political Department, and the provisions of section 12A of the COFEPOSA Act was invoked. The detention order was revoked on 22.3.77 after the expiry of the Presidential Order on 21.3.77. Thereafter, on 29.11.79, a proceeding under Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (for short SAFEM (FOP) Act) was initiated by the competent authority. The competent authority under bis order dated 26.4.85 forfeited the properties mentioned in the order. On appeal the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property partly allowed the appeal by an order made on 30.12.85 in FPA No 24/KL/85. The competent authority under bis order dated 26.4.85 forfeited the properties mentioned in the order. On appeal the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property partly allowed the appeal by an order made on 30.12.85 in FPA No 24/KL/85. The order of the Appellate Tribunal which was/is against the petitioners is as follows : "Regarding business assets of Masudilal and sons (HUF) including the Ambassador car and capital account of HUF in M/s. Sanjay Kumar Vivek Kumar, our finding is that these assets all flow from-the amount disclosed (Rs 1,08, 620/-) under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976. In view of our finding that the source of the funds/ assets disclosed under the above Act is not proved, the introduction of capital of Rs. 47,425/- in Sanjay Kumar Vivek Kumar from legitimate sources is also not proved and the appellant's share in the firm Sanjay Kumar Vivek Kumar as represented by the capital of Rs. 47,425/- and profits and accretions attributable thereto are held to be illegally acquired property. Competent Authority's order is confirmed to the above extent." 2. The petitioner has challenged the detention order and the order of confiscation under SAFEM (FOP) Act. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it may be noted here that section 2 of SAFEM (FOP) Act provides "(1) The provisions of this Act shall apply only to the persons specified in sub section (2). (2) The persons referred to in sub-section (1) arc the following, namely: (a) (b) every person in respect of whom an order of detention has been made under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. Provided that— (iii) Such order of detention, being an order to which the provisions of section 12-A of the said Act apply, has not been revoked before the expiry of the time for, or on the basis of, the first review under sub-section (3) of that section, or on the basis of the report of the Advisory Board under section 8, read with sub-section (6) of section 12-A, of that Act: or (iv) such order of detention has not been set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction." In view of section 2 quoted above, unless the order of detention under COFEPOSA Act is set aside the claim of the petitoners to set aside the confiscation made under SAFEM (FOP) Act cannot be considered 3. The question which arises for consideration is whether the detention order can be challenged at this stage on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 4. Emergency provisions contained in Part XVIII including Articles 358, 359 (1) and 359 (IA) are constitutional imperatives. The validity of law cannot be challenged on the ground of infringing a fundamental right mentioned in the Presidential Order under Article 359(1). Similarly, any executive action taken under Article 358 and 359 (1 A) depriving a person of his fundamental right mentioned in the Presidential Order cannot also be challenged. However, Article 358 and 359 (1A) provides that as soon as a Proclamation of Emergency ceases to operate the effect of suspension must vanish "except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the law so ceases to have effect". But Article 359 (1) does not provide such exception and, therefore, there is an important distinction between the provisions of Article 359 (1) and Article 358 or 359 (IA). 5. With regard to expression "suspension of right", in Black's Law Dictionary, it is stated : "Where a right is suspended by operation of law, the right is revived the moment the bar is removed." 6. In Makhan Siogh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 381 , it has been held : "Since the object of Article 359 (1) is to suspend the rights of the citizens to move any Court, the consequence of the Presidents Order may be that any proceediag which may be pending at the date of the Order remains suspended during the time that the Order is in operation and may be revived when the said Order ceases to be operative." (emphasis added) In the above view of the matter, as soon as the Presidential Order under Article 359 (1) ceases to operate, the infringement of the fundamental rights mentioned in the Order may be challenge in a Court of law. Therefore, the right to challeage the illegality of detention order is revived more so, if the order of detention remains in the field affecting one's right to his property or otherwise. 7. Therefore, the right to challeage the illegality of detention order is revived more so, if the order of detention remains in the field affecting one's right to his property or otherwise. 7. Coming to the case on hand, the detention order has been challenged only on the ground that there was non compliance with the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 12 A for non-consideration as to whether further detention of the petitioner was required and, therefore, the continued detention was violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. But, it was not stated in the petition about the alleged non-compliance. The Government of Assam did not file counter. However, for the satisfaction of the Court, the Government Advocate was directed to produce record;. The Government Advocate did not produce the records by stating that he was informed that records were not traceable in the Secretariat concerned. In such circumstances, a question arises whether an adverse inference has to be drawn against the State Government. In the absence of pleadings, the failure of the State Government to file counter shall have no effect in this regard. That apart, it is a matter of record and the Court may presume that official act had been regularly performed. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn. This being the position, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted as the contention is based on no material. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. No costs.