JUDGMENT : K.R. Vyas, J. The petitioner, in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order of detention dated 2-7-97 passed against him under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "The COFEPOSA") by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Home Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. 2. In the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu, it is alleged that while the detenu was to travel by Indian Air-Lines Flight No.IC-885 from Ahmedabad to Muscat, he was intercepted by the Customs Officer and was asked to come out of the security lounge along with the brown coloured handbag. On examination, the detenu was found in possession of Indian Passport No.L-850543 valid upto 13-07-2002, Indian Airlines ticket No.0382-4746041 dated 9-1-97 for the sector Ahmedabad to Muscat and boarding pass of Indian Airlines for flight No.IC-885 dated 9-1-97 along with some other documents. In presence of Panchas, the brown coloured handbag of the detenu was opened and examined by the Customs Officer wherefrom a packet duly wrapped in light brown coloured adhesive tape was found. On being asked about the contents of the same, the detenu stated that the same contained sweets. However, when the said packet was opened on suspicion, it was found to contain foreign currency viz: (1) US $ 72,400/- (2) Saudi Riyals 1,47,500, (3) QATRI Riyals 7500/- and (4) U.A.E.Dirhams 93,500 in different denominations, totally worth Indian Rupees 49,09,230/-. As the detenu failed to produce any document showing legal possession of the said foreign currency, the same were seized by the Customs Officer under a reasonable belief that the same were liable to confiscation under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973 and the Customs Act, 1962. The detenu's checked-in-baggage containing one corrugated box was also examined under the aforesaid Panchnama and printed 70 Menu Cards of Hotel Red Lobster, Muscat were found and were also seized. 3. The detenu's checked-in-baggage containing one corrugated box was also examined under the aforesaid Panchnama and printed 70 Menu Cards of Hotel Red Lobster, Muscat were found and were also seized. 3. In the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, the detenu stated, inter alia, that he is a resident of village Pavnoor Molta, Dist: Kannuar, Kerala and was working in Muscat for the last eight years as Sales-man for one Mohammed Karim and since about last three to four months for one Sayeed Mohammed Nadim in his hotel Red Lobstar in Muscat as a helper and he was paid by Mr. S.M. Nadim a monthly salary of 90 Omani Riyals plus free food and stay, and that said Sayeed Mohd Nadim asked him to bring a packet containing foreign currency from India from one Ashraf of Kerala; that he would give the detenu packet containing foreign currency which the detenu would deliver to Sayeed Mohd Nadim in Muscat on his return journey from India; that the said Sayeed Mohd Nadim had given to the detenu a return ticket from Muscat to Ahmedabad and back and also told that Sayeed would pay Rs.10,000 for the said work; that the detenu accordingly came to Ahmedabad on 1-1-97 and went to Bangalore by Indian Airlines flight on the same day and therefrom went to village Pavnoor Molta by bus via Kannur; that thereafter the detenu came to Mangalore and from there went to Mumbai through Canaro Pinto Travels by bus and stayed in Akhtar Guest House, Dongri, Mumbai; that the detenu had gone to Mumbai to collect the Menu Cards of Hotel Red Lobster which the detenu was to carry to Muscat for said S.M.Nadim; that thereafter the detenu went to Kalicut from Mumbai by Jet Airways flight and from Calicut the detenu went to Thirur by bus and stayed in C.A.K. Tourist home of Ashram; that on 7-1-97 Ashram met the detenu and delivered a packet stating that it contained foreign currency worth about Rs.25 lac which was to be delivered to Syeed Mohd Nadim as arranged. The detenu from Thirur went to Calicut by bus and from Calicut he went to Mumbay by Jet Airways flight and from Mumbai he left for Ahmedabad in the night of 8-1-97 and reached Ahmedabad on 9-1-97 for boarding Indian Airlines flight to Muscat when he was intercepted by the Customs Officer in the security area on the departure side of Ahmedabad International Air-port. The detenu admitted before the Customs Authority that a packet containing foreign currency totally worth Indian Rs.49,09,230/- was recovered from brown coloured handbag which he was carrying and which was seized in presence of Panchnama under the Panchnama dated 9-1-97. The detaining authority, over and above this admission of the detenu, also considered the remand order passed against him, bail applications filed by the detenu before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, before the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad and before this Court and the orders of rejection passed in all the above applications as also the retracted statement given by the detenu and other materials and arrived at the subjective satisfaction that this is a case of organised smuggling of foreign currency through International Air-port, Ahmedabad and the detenu being an important person of the syndicate engaged in the large scale smuggling of foreign currency concealed in a package for the purpose of transporting the same to Muscat without valid documents by Indian Airlines flight No.IC-885 dated 9-1-1997 without declaring the same to the customs authority. The detaining authority apprehended that the detenu would continue the said prejudicial activities in case his movements are free. In view of this, the detaining authority was of the view that there is sufficient cause to pass detention order against the detenu under the COFEPOSA Act with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. 4. Mr. R.S. Gajjar, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has challenged the order of detention on various grounds. Mr. Gajjar firstly submitted that the representation addressed by the detenu to the detaining authority and the Central Government through Secretary to the Government of India, Delhi, has not been considered expeditiously and that there was a delay in considering the same resulting into infringement of the rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Mr. Gajjar firstly submitted that the representation addressed by the detenu to the detaining authority and the Central Government through Secretary to the Government of India, Delhi, has not been considered expeditiously and that there was a delay in considering the same resulting into infringement of the rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. It is the case of the detenu that his representation dated 19-8-97 addressed to the detaining authority was considered and rejected on 8-9-97 and there is a delay of 21 days, which is unreasonable and unexplained. Mr. J.R.Rajput,Under Secretary, Home Department, Government of Gujarat, has filed affidavit in reply wherein he has pointed out that the representation signed by the detenu before the jail authority on 20-8-97 was received by the COFEPOSA section in Home Department on 21-8-97. The remarks on representation were called for from the Commissioner of Customs vide Home Department's letter dated 21-8-97 which were received on 2-9-97. The COFEPOSA Section in Home Department prepared a factual note in relation to the said representation and put up to Under Secretary on 3-9-97 who cleared it on the same day. Then the file was put up to the Deputy Secretary on 4-9-97 who cleared it on the same day and placed the file before the detaining authority who after careful consideration rejected the said representation on 5-9-97. As 6th and 7th September, 1997 were holidays, decision to that extent was conveyed to the detenu on 8-9-97. During the aforesaid period i.e. from 21-8-97 to 5-9-97 there were public holidays on 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th and 31st August, 1997 and as such there was no unreasonable and unexplained delay on the part of the detaining authority in consideration of the said representation. The affidavit in reply, in my opinion, clearly takes note of the movement of file received by the Home Department. Since details are given about the movements of the file from the date of receipt till its clearance and since there were public holidays in between, it cannot be contended that there was delay on the part of the detaining authority in considering the representation. 5. One more grievance made by Mr. Since details are given about the movements of the file from the date of receipt till its clearance and since there were public holidays in between, it cannot be contended that there was delay on the part of the detaining authority in considering the representation. 5. One more grievance made by Mr. Gajjar that the State Government rejected the representation on 11-9-97 and, therefore, there was a delay of 24 days also does not appear to be well-founded, because in the said affidavit it has been stated that after receiving the remarks from the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad, on 2-9-97, the file was put up before the Under Secretary on 3-9-97 who cleared it on the same day and submitted it to the Deputy Secretary on 4-9-97 who cleared it on the same day. Then it was sent to the office of Additional Chief Secretary ( Home) on 5-9-97 who cleared it on 6-9-97. There were public holidays on 6th and 7th September, 1997. So the papers were sent to the office of the Chief Minister on 8-9-97, who rejected the said representation on 9-9-97 and the decision to that effect was conveyed to the petitioner-detenu vide letter dated 11-9-97. In my opinion, the so-called delay of 24 days as alleged by the petitioner is reasonably and properly explained. 6. Mr. Gajjar then contended that there was a delay of 15 days in rejecting the representations dated 29-9-97 and 16-9-97 by the detaining authority . Reading the affidavit in reply of Mr. Rajput, he has explained this part by stating that a copy of the detenu's representation dated 29-8-97 addressed to the Chairman, Cofeposa Advisory Board was forwarded by the jail authority to the detaining authority as well as to the Deputy Secretary, Home Department (Spl) with its letter dated 30-8-97. On 2-9-97 the Cofeposa Section in Home Department processed the said copy of representation meant for the Detaining authority and pointed out that the detenu had not mentioned in his said representation to forward the copies thereof to the detaining authority and the State Government and therefore they were not supposed to consider the said representation. In fact the said representation was addressed to the Advisory Board and sent to the said Board by the jail authority so that it would be considered by the said Board. In fact the said representation was addressed to the Advisory Board and sent to the said Board by the jail authority so that it would be considered by the said Board. According to the deponent of the affidavit, the file was put up before the Under Secretary who offered his comments on 3-9-97 and sent the file to the Deputy Secretary who cleared it on the same day. Thereafter the papers were submitted to Additional Chief Secretary (H) i.e. detaining authority on 4-9-97 who consented to the views expressed by the Under Secretary. As such it was decided that a copy of the said representation dated 29-8-97 received through jail authority should be considered by the detailing authority. Whereas the another copy of the said representation should be placed before the Government for consideration. It was also decided to draw the attention of the jail authority concerned to the fact that it should forward the representation to the addressee only and copy thereof should be sent to another authority if it is specifically requested by the detenu in his representation. A communication to that effect was sent to the Ahmedabad jail authority on 8-9-97 and as there were public holidays on 6-9-97 and 7-9-97 the Cofeposa Section in Home Department processed the copy of the said representation on 9-9-97 and put up the file to the Under Secretary who cleared it on 10-9-97. Then the file was sent to the Deputy Secretary on 11-9-97 who cleared it on 12-9-97. As it was Sunday on 13-9-97, the papers were sent to the office of the Additional Chief Secretary (H) on 14-9-97 who, after due consideration, rejected the representation on 15-9-97. The detenu was informed accordingly vide letter dated 16-9-97. Reading this affidavit, in my opinion, it is amply cleared that there is no unreasonable and unexplained delay and, therefore, the submission advanced on behalf of the detenu has no merit in it. 7. Mr. Gajjar also made a grievance that the Central Government has not considered the representation of the detenu dated 20-8-97 and rejected it on 23-9-97 and communicated to the detenu on 26-9-97 and thus there was a delay of 33 days. M.S.Nagi, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue has filed affidavit in reply on behalf of the Union of India-respondent No.2. M.S.Nagi, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue has filed affidavit in reply on behalf of the Union of India-respondent No.2. In para 2 of the said reply, he has stated as under: "In reply to Ground G(V) of the Application, it is submitted that a copy of detenu's representation dated 20-8-97 was forwarded by Supdt.,Central Prison, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad vide his letter dated 20-8-97 and received in the COFEPOSA Unit on 21-8-97. The concerned dealing hand ,Section Officer and the Under Secretary were away to Mumbai during 22nd to 26th August, 1997 in connection with the meeting of the Advisory Board. Moreover, 23rd to 25th August, 97 were closed holidays. Therefore, the representation was sent to Sponsoring Authority for comments on 27-8-97. Meanwhile, on receipt of a copy of detenu's representation from the detaining authority, the Sponsoring Authority forwarded his comments vide letter dated 29-8-97 which was received in the COFEPOSA Unit on 4-9-97. The case file was submitted to concerned Under Secretary on 5-9-97. Concerned Under Secretary proposed and submitted the case file to Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) on 8-9-97 (6 & 7.9.97 being closed holidays). JS (COFEPOSA) made some query and desired further comments from Sponsoring Authority on certain points and return the file to concerned Under Secretary on 8-9-97 with direction to issue a letter to Sponsoring Authority. Accordingly, a letter was issued to the Sponsoring Authority on 9-9-97. The Sponsoring Authority forwarded further comments vide letter dated 15-9-97 received in the COFEPOSA Unit on 18-9-97. The case file along with further comments received from the Sponsoring Authority was re-submitted to concerned Under Secretary on 19-9-97. The concerned Under Secretary processed and submitted the case file to Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) on 22-9-97 ( 20 & 21-9-97 were closed holidays). JS (COFEPOSA) recorded his recommendation and submitted the case file to Secretary (Revenue) on 22-9-97 itself. Secretary (Revenue) considered the representation and rejected the same on behalf of the Central Govt. on 23-9-97. A memo intimating the detenu about the rejection of his representation by Central Govt. was also issued on 23-9-97 itself. It is thus submitted that the representation was carefully duly considered by the Central Govt with utmost promptness and without undue or unexplained delay." 8. on 23-9-97. A memo intimating the detenu about the rejection of his representation by Central Govt. was also issued on 23-9-97 itself. It is thus submitted that the representation was carefully duly considered by the Central Govt with utmost promptness and without undue or unexplained delay." 8. Considering the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2, I am of the opinion that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the position has been properly explained. Mr. Gajjar, however, made a grievance that the Sponsoring Authority in the instant case has taken much time and was not prompt in sending reply sought for by the Central Government. According to Mr. Gajjar, even though the Central Government invited comments from the Sponsoring Authority on 27-8-97, the Sponsoring Authority had forwarded the comments on 4-9-97. It is the submission of Mr. Gajjar that the Sponsoring Authority has not explained this delay from 27-8-97 to 4-9-97. 9. One more grievance made by Mr. Gajjar is that even though the Joint Secretary, Cofeposa, invited further comments from the Sponsoring Authority on certain points on 9-9-97, the Sponsoring Authority forwarded the further comments vide letter dated 13-8-97 and thus there was a delay on the part of the Sponsoring Authority in forwarding the comments which has not been explained and, therefore, this unexplained delay has infringed the right of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, Mr. Gajjar has placed reliance on the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of H.G. Ravindra and another v. The State of Karnataka and other, 1984 Cri.L.J.45. In the said case there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay between 24-1-1983 and 28-1-1983 and then again from 28-1-1983 to 3-2-1983 at which latter period the file was said to be pending in the Law Department. Considering the facts, the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court was of the view that the explanation tendered by the Under Secretary to the Home Department is in general terms and it does not say why 6 days were required for the Law Department to see the file. The Division Bench thereafter recorded a finding that delay between 14-1-1983 and 28-1-1983 which has not been satisfactorily explained and shown to be reasonably requisite but also the time from 29-1-1983 to 3-2-1983 cannot be said to have been satisfactorily explained. The Division Bench thereafter recorded a finding that delay between 14-1-1983 and 28-1-1983 which has not been satisfactorily explained and shown to be reasonably requisite but also the time from 29-1-1983 to 3-2-1983 cannot be said to have been satisfactorily explained. In view of this it was held that the delays have not been shown to be reasonable and have not been satisfactorily explained. As far as the case on hand is concerned, initially the Sponsoring Authority did not file affidavit and, therefore, I called for the original file. After perusing the file with the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, I had asked the Sponsoring Authority to file an affidavit-in-reply. S.K.Man, Assistant Commissioner, Customs, Ahmedabad has filed an affidavit in reply and in the said affidavit in reply he has stated as under: "With regard to ground G(v), I say and submit that the representation made by the petitioner detenu on 20-8-1997 has been received by the jail authority on the same day. The jail authority had forwarded the said representation made by the Detenu on the same day which has been received by the Home Department on 21st August, 1997. The second respondent's office is situated at Ahmedabad (sponsoring authority). It is submitted that the representation has been received by the COFEPOSA Section of Commissioner of Customs at Ahmedabad on 21st August, 1997. 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 30th and 31st were the closed holidays. The representation has been processed by the COFEPOSA Unit and prepared the para-wise remarks on 28th August, 1997. Thereafter same has been placed for approval before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs on 29th August, 1997. 30th and 31st August 1997 were closed holidays and, therefore, on 1st September the file has been placed before the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, who is competent authority for approval of the para-wise remarks and on the next day i.e. on 2nd September 1997 the same was dispatched by COFEPOSA Unit to Central Government as well as Home Department, Gandhinagar by speed post. On perusing the files and papers pertaining to detention, it appears that no delay has been caused by the officer in processing the representation received from the State Government as well as the Central Government and at the earliest the officer has dispatched it. On perusing the files and papers pertaining to detention, it appears that no delay has been caused by the officer in processing the representation received from the State Government as well as the Central Government and at the earliest the officer has dispatched it. It is pertinent to note that the COFEPOSA Unit, Ahmedabad, before receipt of the letter from the Central Government regarding calling for the para-wise remarks on 2-9-1997 itself para-wise remarks have been submitted to the Central Government also. So this shows the efficiency and expeditiously in dealing of the representation by the Sponsoring Authority's subordinate officers. 2. With regard to representation sent by the Central Government, I say and submit that Central Government has received the representation forwarded by the Jail Authority on 21st August, 1997. It is submitted that 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 25th were closed holidays. Not only that upto 22nd to 26th August, 1997, the Under Secretary was out of Head-quater for attending the meeting of the Advisory Board held at Bombay, so Central Government has sent representation to the Sponsoring Authority for comments on 27th August, 1997. The office of the Commissioner of Customs of Gujarat at Ahmedabad had sent the representation to the Central Government on 2nd September 1997 by speed post (30th and 31st were closed holidays). It is submitted that para-wise comments prepared by the COFEPOSA Unit has been placed before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs on 29th August, 1997 and being approved by the Assistant Commissioner, the same has been placed before the Deputy Commissioner of Customs on 1st September 1997 for approval and on the very next day the same has been dispatched by the speed post. As such there is no delay as alleged by the petitioner in deciding the representation by the Central Government, nor any delay has been caused by the Sponsoring Authority. 3. On 9th September, 1997, the Central Government has called for further remarks in continuation of para-wise remarks dispatched by Sponsoring Authority on 2-9-97 which has been received by the Sponsoring Authority by 10th September, 1997 i.e. on Wednesday. The earlier para-wise remarks were not as per proforma and, therefore, the Central Government desired that the para-wise remark should be resubmitted as per the letter dated 9th September 1997. The earlier para-wise remarks were not as per proforma and, therefore, the Central Government desired that the para-wise remark should be resubmitted as per the letter dated 9th September 1997. Accordingly, the officers of the Sponsoring authority have prepared para-wise remarks in required proforma and get the approval of Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner on 12th September 1997. The para-wise comments have been forwarded to the Central Government by speed post on 15th September, 1997 (13th and 14th being closed holidays on account of Saturday and Sunday)." 10. This affidavit in reply explains the time taken by the Sponsoring Authority in submitting comments called for by the Central Government. In view of the intervening public holidays when the offices had remained closed and if this period is excluded, I do not think that there was any delay either on the part of the Central Government or the Sponsoring Authority. Therefore, the grievance made by the detenu that there was delay in considering the representation by the respondent is devoid of any merit and it is, therefore, rejected. 11. Mr. Gajjar next contended that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the detaining authority had no material before it indicating that the petitioner-detenu is likely to be released or that such release was imminent. My attention is invited to the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu wherein the detaining authority has considered this aspect regarding bail applications made by the detenu to obtain bail and the possibility of the detenu in applying for bail in future. Reliance is placed by Mr. Gajjar on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and others, 1994 Supp (1) SCC, 597. The Apex Court in paragraph 7 of the said judgment has reproduced the statement occurred in the grounds of detention as under: "The Administrator of the National Capital Territory of Delhi is aware that you are in judicial custody and had not moved any bail application in the Court(s) after June 9,1992 but nothing prevents you from moving bail applications and possibility of your release on bail cannot be ruled out in the near future. Keeping in view your modus operandi to smuggle gold into India and frequent visits to India, the Administrator of the National Capital Territory of Delhi is satisfied that unless prevented you will continue to engage yourself in prejudicial activities once you are released." 12. Considering this statement, the Apex Court has observed that the above statement merely speaks of a possibility of the detenu's release in case he moves a bail petition. It neither says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. Thus, considering the facts of the case, the Apex Court was of the view that there is no material indicating that the release of the petitioner was likely or that there was real possibility of his release and/or that the authority was satisfied about the said aspect. In the case on hand, the detaining authority has clearly satisfied itself by stating that, " ...I am aware that you are in judicial custody since your arrest, and your efforts to obtain bail from the courts are not successful so far. However, there is no ban on applying again for bail in any competent court of law and there is every possibility of your applying for bail and same being granted by the competent court in future. In these circumstances, I infer that you would continue your said prejudicial activity in case your movements are free. I am, therefore, satisfied that there is sufficient cause to pass detention order against you under the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 with a view to preventing you from smuggling goods". Thus, in the case before the Supreme Court, it was not the case of the detaining authority that the release of the detenu was likely or that it was imminent. Secondly, even in the return filed in that case, the authority had not stated that there was material before him upon which he was satisfied that the petitioner was likely to be released or that the release was imminent, while that is not the case in the present petition. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the decision relied upon by Mr. Gajjar will not of any assistance to the cause represented by him on behalf of the detenu. 13. Mr. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the decision relied upon by Mr. Gajjar will not of any assistance to the cause represented by him on behalf of the detenu. 13. Mr. Gajjar then submitted that the detenu demanded five documents for making representation viz: (i) deposition of Shri Y.O.Shah in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, (ii) deposition of Shri Sanjay Tiwari, Panch witness, (iii) deposition of Shri Dolti Superintendent Customs, Godown, (iv) order transferring charge by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad and (v) deposition of B.S.Patel, Panch which were not supplied to him and therefore the detenu was deprived of his right to make effective representation. This grievance of the petitioner has been dealt with by Mr. Rajput in his affidavit in reply wherein it has been pointed out that the documents demanded by the detenu vide letter dated 19-8-97 are documents relating to the Court proceedings in criminal complaint and there is no obligation on the part of the detaining authority to supply these documents to the detenu which are neither relied upon nor referred to in the grounds of detention. In view of this statement, since the detaining authority has not placed any reliance on these documents, nor those documents having been referred to in the grounds of detention, it was not obligatory on the part of the detaining authority to supply the same. Even so, Mr. Gajjar was asked to point out the relevancy of these documents and in fact was permitted to produce the same as they are public documents and can be obtained from the record of the Court. Suffice it to say that Mr.Gajjar could not produce the same and, therefore, it is not necessary for me to consider even at this stage about the relevancy of the said documents. 14. Mr. Gajjar finally submitted that the detenu is NRI and has not studied English and is only in a position to sign in English and his mother language i.e. Malayalam. He does not know reading nor understands any other language and he merely signs the documents supplied to him in English and, therefore, the impugned order is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He does not know reading nor understands any other language and he merely signs the documents supplied to him in English and, therefore, the impugned order is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. I have gone through the relevant documents and his confession statement dated 9-1-97, Panchnama dated 9-1-97, and the bail application filed in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad wherein he has signed in English. In his confession statement dated 9-1-97 recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, he has signed below the endorsement that he could read and understand English language . The statement was also recorded in English as per his say and after reading and understanding the same he has signed the same. The detenu was produced before the Advisory Board and there also he had admitted the proceedings which were read over and explained to him in English. In the bail application which is in English submitted by Mr. Gajjar himself, he had signed below the endorsement read over and explained to him. At no stage he had raised any objection that he understands only his mother tongue. Therefore, this is nothing but an after thought by contending that except Malayalam he does not understand, able to read and write any other language. Therefore, even this submission has no merit. 15. No other contentions have been urged before me. 16. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in any of the contentions raised before me by Mr. Gajjar. The petition fails and is rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Rule discharged.