JUDGMENT - A.V. SAVANT, J. :---Heard all the learned Counsel. 2.The petitioner Smt. Shahista Sayed Haji Baitullah is the sister-in-law of the detenu Nasarullah Abdul Rehman @ Nasir @ Munna son of Sayed Haji Abdul Aziz. Under an order dated 11th August, 1995 (Ex. A page 32) passed by the specially empowered officer namely Shri A.K. Srivastava, Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, the detenu has been detained under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short PITNDPS Act) with a view to preventing him from engaging in the transportation and abetting in the export from India of narcotic drugs. The two instances on the basis of which the order of detention has been passed are of 19th February, 1995 and 15th May, 1995. On 19th February, 1995 on the basis of specific intelligence, the officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai searched Room No. 1006 of Taj Intercontinental Hotel, Mumbai. One bag containing 10 Kg. of Heroin was recovered from the said room though the occupants of the said room purporting to be John and Maggie from United Kingdom were not available in the room. The seizure was effected on the basis of the intelligence passed on to the Narcotic Control Bureau by H.M. Customs and Excise and South East Regional Crime Squad, U.K. and under cover agent John and Maggie had established contact with the detenu through one Mario. John and Maggie came to Bombay and contacted the detenu Nasarullah as also his brother Salim @ Baitullah who was the detenu in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1057 of 1996. Nasarullah had met John in the lobby of the hotel and pursuant to the negotiations had handed over the bag containing 10 Kg. of heroin to John who was to carry the same to London. After seizure of the heroin from Room No. 1006 of Taj Intercontinental on 19th February, 1995, further follow up action was taken and one Ravikant Rambhai Patel and Nasir Chowdhari were arrested in U.K. in connection with the seizure of 10 Kg. of heroin on 19th February, 1995. of heroin to John who was to carry the same to London. After seizure of the heroin from Room No. 1006 of Taj Intercontinental on 19th February, 1995, further follow up action was taken and one Ravikant Rambhai Patel and Nasir Chowdhari were arrested in U.K. in connection with the seizure of 10 Kg. of heroin on 19th February, 1995. 3.Coming to the second incident of 15th May, 1995, on the basis of the intelligence the officers of the Narcotic Control Bureau, Mumbai intercepted Shaikh Salauddin Ibrahim and Salim Rahim Khan when they were in the process of boarding Air Mauritius flight No. MK 751 from Sahar International Air Port. A total of 455 grams of heroin was seized from them in the early hours of 16th May, 1995 since it was concealed in their body cavities. The statements of Shaikh Salauddin were recorded on 16th and 17th May, 1995 which indicated that Sayed Haji Baitullah and his brother, the present detenu, were involved in supply of heroin to them for the purpose of export to Mauritius. 4.The statements of detenu Nasarullah were recorded on 18th May, 1st June and 27th June, 1995. Statements of the detenu's brother Baitullah were also recorded on 18th May, 1st June, and 27th June, 1995. Search of the premises of Baitullah was taken when detenu Nasarullah was found present and his search was also taken. Statement of Baldev Gupta, the representative of Suvidha Communication Centre from where telephone calls were made to various places abroad, was recorded which implicated the detenu Nasarullah. Particulars of all the calls made from various phone numbers in Mumbai to places outside India and calls received from abroad were obtained from Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (for short M.T.N.L.), Mumbai and on the basis of the above material the order of detention has been issued on 11th August, 1995 which was served on the detenu on 23rd August, 1995 alongwith the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention dated 11th August, 1995 elaborately set out the details of two instances-- first of 19th February, 1995 when 10 Kg. The grounds of detention dated 11th August, 1995 elaborately set out the details of two instances-- first of 19th February, 1995 when 10 Kg. of heroin was recovered from Room No. 1006 of Taj Intercontinental, Mumbai and other of 15th May, 1995 when two passengers Shaikh Salauddin Ibrahim and Salim Rahim Khan were intercepted when they were in the process of boarding the Air Mauritius flight No. MK 751 to Port Louis from Sahar International Airport, Mumbai. 455 grams of heroin concealed in their body cavities was recovered on 15th May, 1995. 5.Shri Keswani on behalf of the petitioner has raised 3 contentions before us which are as under : i) In respect of the incident of 19th February, 1995 namely recovery of 10 Kg. of heroin from Room No. 1006 of Taj Intercontinental, the copy of the statement of John to which a reference has been made in para 17 of the grounds of detention was neither placed before the detaining authority nor has a copy thereof been furnished to the detenu. ii) Similarly in respect of the same incident dated 19th Feb. 1995, the record maintained by Suvidha Communication Centre Mumbai in respect of telephone calls made to several overseas telephone numbers in U.K., Dubai, Pakistan and Mauritius to which a reference has been made in para 17 of the grounds of detention, has not been placed before the detaining authority nor has the copy thereof been furnished to the detenu. Counsel contended that both the above contentions constitute a breach of the right guaranteed to the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India which requires the detaining authority to communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order has been made and to afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. It is thus contended that failure on the part of the Sponsoring Authority to place the above mentioned material before the detaining authority and failure on the part of the detaining authority to furnish a copy thereof to the detenu infringes both the facets of the right guaranteed by Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. It is thus contended that failure on the part of the Sponsoring Authority to place the above mentioned material before the detaining authority and failure on the part of the detaining authority to furnish a copy thereof to the detenu infringes both the facets of the right guaranteed by Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. iii) The third contention is that the second incident of 15th May, 1995 when two passengers Shaikh Salauddin Ibrahim and Salim Rahim Khan were intercepted when they were in the process of boarding Air Mauritius flight to Port Louis does not, in any manner, directly involve the detenu and hence reference to the incident of 15th May, 1995 pursuant to which 455 grams of heroin was recovered from the body cavity of two passengers on 16th May 1995 is wholly irrelevant and non existent ground as far as the present detenu is concerned. It may be a relevant ground in case of the detenu's brother Baitullah who was the detenu in Cri. Writ Petition No. 1057 of 1996 but it is not at all relevant and is a non existent ground in so far as the present detenu is concerned. 6.In reply to the first two contentions raised by Shri Keswani, it was contended by Shri Agarwal and Smt. Tahilramani, that in the first place, it is not necessary for the Sponsoring Authority to place every insignificant document to which a casual or passing reference is made in the course of narration of facts while formulating the grounds of detention, before the detaining authority. Consequently, it is contended that there was no obligation on the detaining authority to furnish the copies of such material on which no reliance has been placed while formulating the grounds of detention but which have only been casually referred to in a passing manner in the course of narration of facts. It is further contended that the basic documents which constitute the material in support of the grounds of detention has been furnished to the detenu which was sufficient for recording the satisfaction which has been reached by the detaining authority and it is not open to this Court to inquire into the question of sufficiency of the material for passing the order of detention. If the basic documents have been placed by the Sponsoring Authority before the detaining authority and have been furnished by the detaining authority to the detenu there is no breach of the right guaranteed by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. A mere failure to place some subsidiary documents before the detaining authority and the detaining authority failing to furnish the copies thereof to the detenu does not infringe any facet of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India -say the learned Counsel. 7.On the third contention raised by Shri Keswani, Counsel for the respondents contend that, in the first place, it is not as if the detenu is totally unconnected with the second incident of 15th May, 1995 when the two passengers who were to board Air Mauritius flight were intercepted and from whose body cavities 455 grams of heroin was recovered on 16th May, 1995. The material on record shows the complicity of the detenu even in respect of this incident. That apart, respondents' Counsel contend that the third contention is wholly untenable in view of the provisions of section 6 of the PITNDPS Act which is identical to section 5-A of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 which amendment was introduced with effect from 1st July, 1995 in the COFEPOSA Act. Section 6 of the PITNDPS Act is also identical with section 5-A of the National Security Act, 1980 which amendment was inserted with effect from 21st June, 1984 in the National Security Act. 8.As far as the first contention regarding the statement of John not being placed before the detaining authority and copy thereof not being furnished to the detenu, the pleadings are to be found in para 4(i)(c) at page 8 onwards in the petition. The same contention has been reiterated in para 4(ii) on page 11 and in para 4(iii) on page 13 of the petition. The grounds taken in para 4(ii) and 4(iii) cover the first two points mentioned above, namely, statement of John and record of Suvidha Communication Centre not being placed before the detaining authority and the copies thereof not being furnished in the detenu. The grounds taken in para 4(ii) and 4(iii) cover the first two points mentioned above, namely, statement of John and record of Suvidha Communication Centre not being placed before the detaining authority and the copies thereof not being furnished in the detenu. The reply to the first contention is to be found in para 8 of the affidavit of Shri Srivastva wherein it has been stated that the detaining authority had communicated to the detenu the primary and basic facts upon which the conclusion was founded and hence it was not found necessary to furnish the copies of the statement of John who was the under cover agent. It is furtherstated that the detenu had been supplied with the grounds on which the order of detention was based and these grounds indicated the kind of prejudicial activities in which the detenu was suspected to be engaged and the detenu was supplied with full and adequate particulars to enable him to make a representation against the order of detention. 9.The second contention regarding the records of Suvidha Communication Centre not, being placed before the detaining authority and copies thereof not being furnished to the detenu, is to be found in para 4(i)(a) on page 5 of the petition and has been repeated in para 4(i)(b) on page 6 of the petition. As stated earlier, in para 4(ii) and 4(iii) of the petition, the first two contentions have again been reiterated. In short, as far as the first two contentions are concerned, the grievance is that para 17 of the ground of detention makes a reference to the record maintained by Suvidha Communication Centre and the statement of John in respect of the corroboration of the toll particulars regarding the telephone No. 372 4174. Since this material was not placed before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority and copies thereof were not furnished by the detaining authority to the detenu, the petitioner's Counsel contended that the order of detention is in violation of the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution and is, therefore, liable to be struck down. We may reproduce para 17 of the grounds of detention which reads as under: "17. We may reproduce para 17 of the grounds of detention which reads as under: "17. The records maintained by Suvidha Communication Centre, Bombay-27 show that Baitullah and his associates had contacted several overseas telephone numbers in U.K., Dubai, Pakistan and Mauritius including the numbers mentioned above from his residence cum office premises at 2nd floor, Hanif Mansion, Chamar Lane, Bombay-27 during the relevant period i.e. second half of February, 1995 through conference facility. Baitullah Khan could not satisfactorily explain why calls were made to the overseas numbers mentioned above. Though Baitullah Khan and his younger brother Nasarullah Abdul Rehman @ Munna you had denied your involvement vide your statement dated 27-6-95 (which were recorded, while you were in Judicial Custody), there is a strong corroboration between the statement of John, the toll particulars in respect of Tel. No. 372 4174 and the calls made by Baitullah Khan and his associate from the Conference facility of Suvidha Communication Centre, Byculla, Bombay-27." 10.As indicated above, the grounds and material in support of the grounds of detention establish a fact that 10 Kg. of heroin was delivered by the detenu to John at Taj Intercontinental, Mumbai on 19th February, 1995 and it was recovered from room No. 1006 of the said Hotel on 19th February, 1995. The statements of the detenu were recorded on as many as 3 occasions viz. on 18th May, 1st June and 27th June, 1995. The statements of the brother of the detenu namely Sayed Haji Baitullah were also recorded thrice namely on the same dates as above. The statement of Baldev Gupta, representative of Suvidha Communication Centre from where calls were made to various countries abroad, like U.K., Dubai, Pakistan and Mauritius was recorded. The toll particulars received from M.T.N.L. about the calls made to and from telephone No. 375 6641 which was under the control of Baitullah, the brother of the detenu, establish a link between the detenu and the two incidents. All this material has been placed before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority and the copies of the same have been furnished by the detaining authority to the detenu alongwith the order of detention and grounds of detention. All this material has been placed before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority and the copies of the same have been furnished by the detaining authority to the detenu alongwith the order of detention and grounds of detention. While we are not concerned with the sufficiency of the grounds of detention, we have to only ascertain whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable belief or conviction could have been entertained by the detaining authority on the grounds mentioned in section 3(1) of the Act. Whether the other grounds should have been taken into consideration or not is not relevant at the stage of passing the order of detention. 11.It is also well settled that the law requires the detaining authority to furnish to the detenu the set of grounds and material on which reliance has been placed in passing the order of detention. It is, however, equally well settled that the material to which a mere passing reference is made, and which is not relied upon while formulating the grounds of detention, is not required to be furnished to the detenu and the failure to supply such material on which no reliance is placed for formulating the grounds of detention but to which a mere passing reference is made, cannot constitute the breach of any of the two facets of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. It is equally well settled that if the basic material, for arriving at the necessary satisfaction which constitute the grounds of detention, has been furnished to the detenu then the copies of some documents which have been merely referred to in the process of formation of grounds of detention but, on which no reliance has been placed, need not necessarily be supplied to the detenu and the failure to supply such subsidiary documents which are not the basic documents and which subsidiary documents have merely been referred to but on which no reliance has been placed while formulating the grounds of detention, did not form part of the material that must be supplied to the detenu. Since the first two contentions have been argued before us at some length by all the learned Counsel, we will briefly refer to few of the authorities on this subject. 12.In (Mst. Since the first two contentions have been argued before us at some length by all the learned Counsel, we will briefly refer to few of the authorities on this subject. 12.In (Mst. L.M.S. Ummu Saleema v. B.B. Gujral and another)1, A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 1191, the Apex Court was called upon to consider the identical question regarding the alleged failure to supply information about certain trunk calls made and about the petrol bills in respect of the petrol being put into the jeep used for smuggling between certain dates. The order of detention was made on 31st October, 1980 under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act and the grounds of detention were served on the detenu alongwith the relevant material. A contention was raised by Shri Jethmalani before the Apex Court that the detaining authority was under an obligation to supply, alongwith the grounds of detention each and every document to which reference was made in the grounds of detention irrespective of whether the said document was or was not relied upon in making the order of detention. It was contended that the very fact that the documents were mentioned in the grounds established that the documents were relied upon in making the order of detention. This contention has been dealt with in para 5 of the judgment at page 1193 of the report. Earlier in para 3 of the judgment, there is a reference to the record of the trunk calls made and in para 4 there is a reference to the petrol bills regarding the petrol being put on certain occasions in the vehicle used for smuggling. The Apex Court considered its earlier judgments viz. (i) (Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal)2, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 550; (ii) (Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India)3, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1983 and (iii) (Smt. Shalini Soni v. Union of India)4, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 431 and observed that every failure to furnish copies of the documents to which a reference is made in the grounds of detention is not an infringement of Article 22(5), fatal to the order of detention. It is only failure to furnish copies of such documents as were relied upon by the detaining authority making it difficult for the detenu to make an effective representation, that amounts to a violation of the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 22(5). It is only failure to furnish copies of such documents as were relied upon by the detaining authority making it difficult for the detenu to make an effective representation, that amounts to a violation of the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 22(5). The Apex Court further observed that it is unnecessary to furnish copies of documents to which a casual or passing reference may be made in the course of narration of facts and which are not relied upon by the detaining authority in making the order of detention. In the facts of Umma Saleema's case, the Apex Court came to the conclusion that the record of trunk calls and petrol bills did not form part of the documents which were relied upon but they fell in the category of documents to which a casual or passing reference was made while passing the order of detention. In the result, the contention raised on behalf of the detenu was rejected and it was held that there was no violation of the right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The observations to the above effect are to be found in para 5 of the judgment at pages 1193-94 of the report. These observations undoubtedly support the contention raised on behalf of the respondents before us. 13.It is no doubt true that in (Ebrahim Ahmad Batti v. State of Gujarat and others)5, A.I.R. 1982 Supreme Court 1500, the Apex Court observed that all documents, statements and other material incorporated in the grounds which have influenced the mind of the detaining authority in arriving at the reasonable subjective satisfaction must be furnished to the detenu alongwith the grounds of detention and that all such material must be furnished to him in a script or language which he understands and failure to do so would amount to a breach of the duty cast upon the detaining authority under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. In Ebrahim Ahmed Batti's case, the Urdu translations of the documents in English were not furnished to the detenu for a long period of time. The detenu pleaded his inability to understand English or Hindi or Gujrati in which languages , some of the documents on which reliance was placed were furnished to the detenu. In Ebrahim Ahmed Batti's case, the Urdu translations of the documents in English were not furnished to the detenu for a long period of time. The detenu pleaded his inability to understand English or Hindi or Gujrati in which languages , some of the documents on which reliance was placed were furnished to the detenu. It was in these peculiar facts that the Apex Court came to the conclusion that the documents on which reliance was placed in the grounds of detention ought to be communicated to the detenu in the script or language which he understands and failure to do so would be violative of his right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. We do not think that the ratio of the decision in Ebrahim Ahmed Batti's case can have any application to the facts of the present case. 14.In (Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Kerala and others)6, A.I.R. 1986 Supreme Court 687 the Apex Court again considered the question in the light of the grievance that though reliance was placed on the confessions alleged to have been made by the detenu and his children, the retraction of the said confessions made under section 108 of the Customs Act had not been taken into consideration. This contention has been referred to in para 55 of the judgment at page 695 of the report. Dealing with the contention, the Apex Court observed that concept of "grounds" has to receive an interpretation which will keep in tune with the contemporary notions of the realities of the society and the purpose of the Act in question in the light of concepts of liberty and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Articles 19(1), 21 and 22 of the Constitution. At the end of para 73, at page 699 of the report, the Apex Court observed as under: "While the expression "grounds" for that matters includes not only conclusions of fact but also all the "basic facts" on which those conclusions were founded, they are different from subsidiary facts or further particulars of the basic facts." The Apex Court further held in para 74 of the judgment that the satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority was drawn from several factors and even if the confessions were to be completely ignored then the inferences can still be drawn from other independent and objective facts mentioned in the case. The Apex Court, therefore, held that the order of detention cannot be challenged merely on the ground of rejection of inferences drawn from confession because the statements of retractions were not taken into account. In para 74 of the judgment at page 699 of the report the Apex Court observed thus: "74. In the instant case, the ground of detention is the satisfaction of the detaining authority that with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation or augmentation of foreign exchange or with a view to preventing the detenu from, inter alia, dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping the smuggled goods, or engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods the detention of the detenu is necessary. This satisfaction was arrived at as inferences from several factors. These have been separately mentioned. One of them is the contention (confession?) but this ground was taken into consideration without taking notice of the retraction made thereafter. But the inference of the satisfaction was drawn from several factors which have been enumerated before. We have to examine whether even if the facts stated in the confession are completely ignored, then the inferences can still be drawn from other independent and objective facts mentioned in this case, namely, the fact of seizure after search of 60 gold biscuits from the suitcase of the daughter in the presence of the father which indubitably belonged to the father and admitted by him to belong to him for which no explanation has been given and secondly the seizure of the papers connected with other groups and organisations - Pratap Sait and others to whom gold has been sold by the father are relevant grounds from which an inference can reasonably be drawn for the satisfaction of the detaining authority for detaining the detenus for the purpose of section 3(1) (iii) and 3(1) (iv). We are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be challenged, merely by the rejection of the inference drawn by confession. The same argument was presented in a little different shade namely the fact of retraction should have been considered by the detaining authority and the Court does not know that had that been taken into consideration, what conclusion the detaining authority would have arrived at. This contention cannot be accepted. The same argument was presented in a little different shade namely the fact of retraction should have been considered by the detaining authority and the Court does not know that had that been taken into consideration, what conclusion the detaining authority would have arrived at. This contention cannot be accepted. We are not concerned with the sufficiency of the grounds. We are concerned whether there are relevant materials on which a reasonable belief or conviction could have been entertained by the detaining authority on the grounds mentioned in section 3(1) of the said Act. Whether other grounds should have been taken into consideration or not is not relevant at the stage of passing of the detention order. This contention, therefore, cannot be accepted. If that is the position then in view of section 5-A of the Act there was sufficient material to sustain this ground of detention." In our view the ratio of this decision clearly supports the respondent's contention. 15.In (Haridas Amarchand Shah of Bombay v. K.L. Verma and others)7, 1989(1) Supreme Court Cases 250 the question was about the order varying the conditions of bail not being placed before the detaining authority before arriving at the subjective satisfaction. This contention has been dealt with in paras 7 and 8 of the judgment at pages 252 and 253 of the report. The second contention was regarding the copies of the Bank passbook not being placed before the detaining authority and copies thereof not being furnished to the detenu. This contention has been dealt with in para 10 of the judgment at page 254 of the report. The Apex Court has rejected the first contention observing that the application for variation of the conditions of bail and order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrates varying the conditions of bail were not vital and material documents in as much as granting of bail by the Magistrate enabled the detenu to come out and carry on his business activities as before and the conditions imposed by the Magistrate requiring the detenu to appear at the particular time had no relation to the activities carried on by the detenu and the order varying the conditions of bail was not relevant document and failure to produce the document before the detaining authority before arriving at the subjective satisfaction had not vitiated the order. Similarly in para 10 of the judgment at page 254/255 of the report, dealing with the copies of the Bank passbook, it has been observed by the Apex Court that it was not necessary to furnish the copies of all the documents including the Bank passbook which were not material and relevant for reaching the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority though they were mentioned in the panchanama. It has been further observed that no application had been made before the detaining authority for giving the detenu the copies of the Bank passbook on the ground that they were necessary for making an effective representation against the order of detention. In the conclusion the Apex Court observed that since the Bank passbooks were not vital and material documents in reaching the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, failure to furnish the copies of the Bank passbook to the detenu had not infringed any right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. In our view, this judgment clearly supports the respondent's contention. 16.In (N. Meera Rani v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and another)8, A.I.R. 1989 Supreme Court 2027 the question was about the failure to supply the report of the finger-print expert to the detenu on the ground that it was a material document to enable the detenu to make an effective representation in respect of the grounds of detention. A similar contention was raised in respect of some other documents mentioned in the grounds of detention, namely, document Nos. 9, 11, 12 and 13 to which a reference is made in para 6 of the judgment at page 2032 of the report. The Apex Court did not accept the said contention in view of the provisions of section 5-A of the National Security Act which is on par with section 6 of PITNDPS Act. 17.In (Madan Lal Anand v. Union of India and others)9, A.I.R. 1990 Supreme Court 176, the question arose as to whether the failure to place certain documents before the detaining authority had vitiated the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority. The documents have been enumerated in para 18 of the judgment at page 180 of the report. 17.In (Madan Lal Anand v. Union of India and others)9, A.I.R. 1990 Supreme Court 176, the question arose as to whether the failure to place certain documents before the detaining authority had vitiated the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority. The documents have been enumerated in para 18 of the judgment at page 180 of the report. In para 19 of the judgment at page 180, the Apex Court observed that even assuming that the four documents mentioned in para 18 were placed before the detaining authority, it was difficult to understand how the same could have influenced the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in favour of the detenu. The Apex Court, therefore, rejected the contention holding that even if the documents had not been placed before the detaining authority that could not, in the least, affect the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. This conclusion is to be found at the end of para 19 of the judgment at pages 180-181. 18.In (Kamarunnissa v. Union of India and another)10, A.I.R. 1991 Supreme Court 1640, the question arose was as to whether the failure to furnish copies of the declaration made by the detenu before the customs authorities and the copies of the search warrants mentioned in the grounds of detention had violated the petitioner's right to make a representation against the order of detention. The argument has been considered in para 14 of the judgment at page 1648 of the report and the Apex Court observed as under: "The High Court while dealing with this contention came to the conclusion that the declarations made by the detenus at the airport were neither relied on nor referred to in the grounds of detention. As regards the search authorisations, it may be pointed out that although there is a mention of the premises searched in the grounds of detention, the incriminating material found has neither been used nor made the basis for formulating the grounds of detention. Mere reference to these searches by way of completing the narration cannot entitle the detenus to claim copies of the search authorisation." In the light of the above, the Apex Court rejected the contention raised on behalf of the detenu and upheld the order passed by the High Court. Mere reference to these searches by way of completing the narration cannot entitle the detenus to claim copies of the search authorisation." In the light of the above, the Apex Court rejected the contention raised on behalf of the detenu and upheld the order passed by the High Court. It is true that in (Abdul Sattar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India and others)11, A.I.R. 1991 Supreme Court 2261, the Apex Court was considering the question of failure to furnish the copy of the application for bail and order passed thereon. In para 12 of the judgment, at page 2269, after considering all the earlier decisions, to some of which we have made a reference above, the Apex Court set down its conclusions. We may only reproduce the relevant conclusions (3), (4), (5) and (6) appearing on pages 2270 and 2271 of the report as under: "(3) If the detenu has moved for bail then the application and the order thereon refusing bail even if not placed before the detaining authority it does not amount to suppression of relevant material. The question of non application of mind and satisfaction being impaired does not arise as long as the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was in actual custody. (4) Accordingly the non-supply of the copies of bail application or the order refusing bail to the detenu cannot affect the detenu's right of being afforded a reasonable opportunity guaranteed under Article 22(5) when it is clear that the authority has not relied or referred to the same. (5) When the detaining authority has merely referred to them in the narration of events and has not relied upon them failure to supply bail application and order refusing bail will not cause any prejudice to the detenu in making an effective representation. Only when the detaining authority has not only referred to but also relied upon them in arriving at the necessary satisfaction then failure to supply these documents may, in certain cases depending upon the facts and circumstances amount to violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Whether in a given case the detaining authority has casually or passingly referred to these documents or also relied upon them depends upon the facts and the grounds, which aspect can be examined by the Court. Whether in a given case the detaining authority has casually or passingly referred to these documents or also relied upon them depends upon the facts and the grounds, which aspect can be examined by the Court. 6) In a case where detenu is released on bail and is at liberty at the time of passing the order of detention, then the detaining authority has to necessarily rely upon them as that would be a vital ground for ordering detention. In such a case the bail application and the order granting bail should necessarily be placed before the authority and the copies should also be supplied to the detenu." Thus, it will be clear from the abovementioned conclusions drawn from the entire case law that non supply of the copies of bail application and order refusing bail cannot affect the detenu's right under Article 22(5) when the authority had not relied upon the same in the grounds. It has been reiterated in conclusion No. (5) that the failure to supply the copy of the bail application and order refusing bail which is merely referred to in the narration of events by the detaining authority and not relied upon by the detaining authority cannot cause any prejudice to the detenu in making an effective representation whether a particular fact has been merely referred to or relied upon will undoubtedly depend upon the facts of each case as stated in conclusion (5) above. It is only when the detenu has been released on bail and the detaining authority has to necessarily rely upon this fact as a vital ground for ordering detention that, in such a case, the application for bail and order granting bail should necessarily be placed before the detaining authority and copies thereof should also be given to the detenu as mentioned in conclusion No. (6). In our view, the ratio of the above decision can have no application to the facts of the present case where what is alleged is that the copy of statement of John and record maintained by Suvidha Communication Centre to which a mere passing reference has been made in para 17 of the grounds of detention, has not been furnished to the detenu. As mentioned above, these are not the basic facts on which reliance has been placed by the detaining authority for recording the substantive satisfaction. As mentioned above, these are not the basic facts on which reliance has been placed by the detaining authority for recording the substantive satisfaction. In our view, therefore, the ratio of the decision in Abdul Sattar Ibrahim Manik's case on which Shri Keswani placed reliance can have no application to the facts of the present case. 19.Lastly, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in (Veeramani v. State of Tamil Nadu)12, 1995 Cri.L.J. 2644. The question that arose before the Apex Court was whether the copies of the statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was simply placed before the detaining authority and which were looked into to verify whether the contents of the F.I.R. were substantial, could be said to be the real material forming the basis of the grounds of detention. On considering some of the earlier judgments, it was held in para 9 of the judgment at page 2649 of the report that the real question was as to whether these statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were just placed before the detaining authority for arriving at the satisfaction and whether they constitute part of the grounds of detention, it was held that the non supply of statement under section 161 which was simply looked into to verify the contents of the F.I.R. cannot be held to be the real material forming the basis of the grounds of detention and no prejudice was caused to the detenu in making the representation. 20.Learned Counsel on either side also tried to invite our attention to several decisions of this Court on the first two contentions but in view of the decisions of the Apex Court which we have discussed above, we do not think it necessary to burden this judgment with a further discussion of the High Court decisions on the point. We are of the view that the copy of the statement of John and copy of the record maintained by Suvidha Communication Centre, Mumbai in connection with the calls made to U.K., Dubai, Pakistan and Mauritius, to which a mere reference is made in para 17 of the grounds of detention, did not constitute the basic material for recording the satisfaction of the detaining authority. These documents have been merely referred to in para 17 of the grounds of detention and, in our view, no reliance has been placed on these documents for formulating the grounds of detention. Reliance has been placed on other relevant material such as (i) delivery of 10 kg. of heroin by the detenu to the under cover agent John on 19th February, 1995 (ii) recovery of the said 10 Kg. heroin from Room No. 1006 of Taj Intercontinental Hotel on 19th February, 1995 (iii) statement of detenu recorded on 18th May, 1st June and 27th June, 1995 (iv) statement of the co-detenu Baitullah which was recorded on 18th May, 1st June and 27th June, 1995; (v) statement of Baldev Gupta, representative of Suvidha Communication Centre and (vi) toll particulars received from M.T.N.L. in respect of the telephone calls made to and from telephone No. 3756641 belonging to the co-detenu Baitullah. 21.In our view, independently of the provisions of section 6 of the PITNDPS Act the material mentioned above, was sufficient for the detaining authority to record its satisfaction for passing the order of detention. When we say this we are conscious of the fact that this Court is not concerned with the sufficiency of the material on the basis of which the order of detention has been made. Thus, in the light of the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in (i) Mst. L.M.S. Ummu Saleema v. B.B. Gujaral and another, A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 1191; (ii) Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Kerala and others, A.I.R. 1986 Supreme Court, 687; (iii) Haridas Amarchand Shah of Bombay v. K.L. Verma and others, 1989(1) Supreme Court Cases 250; (iv) N. Meera Rani v. State of Tamil Nadu and other, A.I.R. 1989 Supreme Court 2027; (v) Madan Lal Anand v. Union of India and others, A.I.R. 1990 Supreme Court 176; (vi) Kamarunnissa v. Union of India and another, A.I.R. 1991 Supreme Court 1640 and (vii) Veeramani v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1995 Cri.L.J. 2644, we are of the view that failure to supply the copy of the statement of John and copy of the record maintained by Suvidha Communication Centre does not constitute breach of any of the two facets of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In our view, the reference to these documents is merely a casual reference in para 17 of the grounds of detention. Having perused the entire grounds, we are of the view, that no reliance has been placed by the detaining authority on the abovementioned two documents. There are enough other grounds on which the subjective satisfaction has been reached by the detaining authority. The two documents are subsidiary facts to which a casual reference has been made while formulating the grounds of detention for recording the subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention. Thus, these two documents did not constitute the grounds of detention which ought to be communicated to the detenu within the meaning of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. There is thus no merit in the first two contentions raised on behalf of the detenu. 22.Coming to the third and last contention of Shri Keswani, it relates to the detenu not being concerned with the second incident of 15th May, 1995 when the two passengers Shaikh Salahuddin Ibrahim and Salim Rahim Khan were intercepted when they were about to board Air Mauritius Flight No. MK. 751 for Port Louis and in the early hours of 16th May, 1995, 455 grams of heroin concealed in their body cavities was recovered. It is not necessary for us to go into the details as to how far is the involvement of the detenu in the second incident though it was contended by Shri Keswani that the detenu is not at all concerned with the second incident of 15th May, 1995. In our view, section 6 of PITNDPS Act, is a complete answer to this contention. Section 6 of the said Act reads as under : "6. In our view, section 6 of PITNDPS Act, is a complete answer to this contention. Section 6 of the said Act reads as under : "6. Grounds of detention severable: Where a person has been detained in pursuance of an order of detention under sub-section (1) of section 3 which has been made on two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds and accordingly:- (a) such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds is or are :- (i) vague, (ii) non-existent (iii) not relevant, (iv) not connected or not proximately connected with such person, or (v) invalid for any other reason whatsoever, and it is not, therefore, possible to hold that the Government or officer making such order would have been satisfied provided in sub-section (1) of section 3 with reference to the remaining ground or grounds and made the order of detention. (b) the Government or Officer making the order of detention shall be deemed to have made the order of detention under the said subsection (1) after being satisfied as provided in that sub-section with reference to the remaining ground or grounds. 23.We have already mentioned earlier that section 6 of this Act is in pari materia with section 5-A of COFEPOSA Act, 1974 and National Security Act, 1980. In COFEPOSA Act, 1974 section 5-A was introduced with effect from 21st June, 1995 and in National Security Act of 1980, it was introduced with effect from 1st July, 1984. The PITNDPS Act being the enactment of 1988 has section 6 from its inception. Clause (a) of section 6 reproduced above makes it clear that the order of detention shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds is or are (i) vague, (ii) non-existent, (iii) not relevant, (iv) not connected or not proximately connected with such person, or (v) invalid for any other reason whatsoever and it is, therefore, not possible to hold that Government or Officer making such an order would have been satisfied as provided in sub-section (1) of section 3 with reference to the remaining ground or grounds and made the order of detention. Clause (b) of section 6 further makes it clear that the Government or Officer making the order of detention shall be deemed to have made the order of detention under sub-section (1) of section 3 after being satisfied as provided in that sub-section with reference to the remaining ground or grounds. Thus even assuming that, the detenu was unconnected with the second incident of 15th May, 1995, in our view, the contention of Shri Keswani that order of detention must, on that ground, be struck down, has to be rejected in view of the clear mandate of section 6 of PITNDPS Act. The constitutional validity of section 5-A of COFEPOSA Act has already been upheld by the Constitution Bench of 9 Judges in (Attorney General of India etc. v. Amratlal Prajivandas and others etc.)13, A.I.R. 1994 Supreme Court 2179. The discussion in paras 44 to 49 of the judgment at pages 2206 to clearly shows that enactment of the said provision does not infringe upon any facet of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. In the summary in para 55 of the judgments, point No. 6 reads as under which is at page 2210. "(6) Section 5-A of COFEPOSA is not invalid or void. It is not violative of clause (5) of Article 22." 24.Even before the Constitution Bench upheld the validity of section 5-A of the Act, the Apex Court had an occasion to consider the effect of section 5-A of the COFEPOSA Act in (State of Gujarat v. Chamanlal Manjibhai Soni)14, A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 1480. The Apex Court observed in para 2 of its judgment that several High Courts had taken a view that where several grounds are mentioned in the order of detention and one of that is found to be either vague or irrelevant then the entire order was vitiated because it would not be predicated to what extent the subjective satisfaction of the authority was influenced by the vague or irrelevant ground, It was to displace the basis of these decisions that the Parliament enacted section 5-A of the COFEPOSA Act in order to make it clear that even if one of the grounds is irrelevant but the other grounds are clear and specific, it would not vitiate the order of detention. Similar view was expressed by the Apex Court in (Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra and others)15, A.I.R. 1986 Supreme Court 2177 : 1987(2) Bom.C.R. 383 which was a case under National Security Act, 1980. The relevant observations are to be found in paras 19 to 23 of the judgment at page 2184 of the report and the conclusion was that even the existence of one ground was sufficient to sustain the detention order. Similar observations have been made by the Apex Court in (Yogendra Murari v. State of U.P. and others)16, A.I.R. 1988 Supreme Court 1835. Again in the case of (Shafiq Ahmad v. District Magistrate, Meerut and others)17, A.I.R. 1990 Supreme Court 220 the Apex Court held that even if more than one ground was stated in the grounds then the fact that one of the grounds is bad would not alter the order of detention after the amendment of the Act in 1984 provided the other grounds were valid. These observations are to be found in para 8 of the judgment at page 224-225 of the report. 25.In the light of the above Apex Court decisions, we do not think it necessary to refer to any of the High Court decisions to the third contention as well. As indicated earlier, having regard to the clear mandate of section 6 of the PITNDPS Act, even if the third contention of Shri Keswani that the detenu was unconcerned with the second incident of 15th May, 1995 were to be accepted, in the view which we have taken on the first two contentions, the third contention has to be rejected. The mandate of section 6 is very clear to the effect that even if the second incident is not relevant or not connected or not proximately connected with the detenu and even if the ground relating to second incident is invalid for any other reason whatsoever, this cannot vitiate the order of detention as far as the main incident of recovery of 10 Kg. of heroin from Room No. 1006 of Taj Intercontinental, Mumbai on 19th February, 1995 is concerned. The improvement (involvement) of the detenu in that incident is more than adequately established and it is not for us to pronounce upon the sufficiency of the material before the detaining authority for recording subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention. of heroin from Room No. 1006 of Taj Intercontinental, Mumbai on 19th February, 1995 is concerned. The improvement (involvement) of the detenu in that incident is more than adequately established and it is not for us to pronounce upon the sufficiency of the material before the detaining authority for recording subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention. 26.In the view that we have taken, we find no merit in any of the three contentions raised by Shri Keswani. The petition is thus devoid of any merit. Rule is, therefore, discharged. Petition dismissed.