E.Padmanabhan, J: All the above four habeas corpus petitions have been filed by one Ranjith Thamel, a Srilankan Citizen claiming to be the friend of the detenus (i) J.Kamal Roy, (ii) K.Chandrakumara, (iii) L.H.Karuna Bala, and (iv) H.M.Nilame respectively. All the four detenus were ordered to be detained by the respondent herein under Sec.3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 by individual order dated 7th January, 2000 as the Detaining Authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenus in each case had knowingly engaged himself in the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and that the detenu has to be detained with a view to prevent him from engaging in the possession and transportation of narcotic drugs in future. 2. This Court admitted the four habeas corpus petitions on 4.7.2000 and the respondent had been served, the respondent had also entered appearance and filed its counter. 3. Heard Mr.R.Rajarathinam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all the habeas Corpus petitions and Mr.Su.Srinivasan, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent in all the habeas corpus petitions. On the orders from the Court Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General appeared for the respondents and made elaborate submissions. 4. Though separate orders of detention were passed by the Detaining Authority, in effect all the four petitioners have engaged themselves in one and the same illegal trafficking in heroin. The petitioners is also raising identical contentions excepting there being difference excepting the detenue L.H.Karuna Bala, for whose benefit one the habeas corpus petition has been filed and in all other respects the contentions are identical and all the four habeas corpus petitions could be disposed of by a common order. The difference between the detenu Karuna Bala vis-a-vis other detenus will be referred at the appropriate stage. I. Petitioner’s case 5. The common case of the petitioner could be summarised briefly as seen from the order of detention and also as set out in the counter. 6. On 20th October, 1999, the Officers of the Tuticorin Customs Preventive Unit conducted sea patrol and shore patrol, on specific information that Srilankan fishing launch would come to Kayalpattinam Tiruchendur Sea area to smuggle Narcotics Drugs which would be loaded by one Meeran, a law graduate of Kayalpattinam and the said smuggling act would be done near Kayalpattinam old customs building. On 21.10.99 at about 3.00 hrs in the early morning, a Srilankan fishing launch came to the sea shore and the said Officers who conducted sea patrol rushed towards it and on seeing the patrol boat, the Srilankan fishing launch turned back and rushed towards the mid sea. Since the fishing launch ignored the signals issued by the Officers they opened six rounds of fire in the air and apprehended the launch. 7. The Preventive Unit Officers entered the launch and noticed the presence of four Srilankans and three bags found in the launch. On a further search of the sea shore, the Officers found one bag at the shore. The persons who came to load the goods escaped under the cover of darkness. The said Officers brought the goods, launch and the four persons to the Tuticorin old Harbour Customs Port Jetty for searching the fishing launch named “Salucha Sandi” which was towed by Customs Patrol Boat. In the presence of independent witnesses the said launch was searched. The names of the four persons present were ascertained. The bags were found in the Srilankan Fishing Boat along with four old fishing nets. The Officer took the four bags and four fishing nets to their office for further investigation alongwith four Srilankans and independent witnesses. All the four bags were opened. Out of which three bags contained three packets each and fourth bag contained two packets. The packets were found to be wrapped by cello tape and cloth and brown colour powder was found in the polythene packets below outer packing. The packets were weighed and found to contain 52.840 Kgs in the aggregate. A small quantity was taken from each of the packets and tested with the Narcotics Test Kit and it answered for Heroin. Thereafter samples were drawn in the presence of independent witnesses from all the bags and forwarded for chemical analysis. 52.840 Kgs of Heroine alongwith the Srilankan fishing launch besides fishing nets were seized under a mahazar under NDPS Act, 1985 and Customs Act 1962. The mahazar was prepared on 21.10.1999. The four men were taken to custody. 8. Karuna Bala one of the detenus in his statement dated 21.10.1999 had narrated the sequences of events in detail. 52.840 Kgs of Heroine alongwith the Srilankan fishing launch besides fishing nets were seized under a mahazar under NDPS Act, 1985 and Customs Act 1962. The mahazar was prepared on 21.10.1999. The four men were taken to custody. 8. Karuna Bala one of the detenus in his statement dated 21.10.1999 had narrated the sequences of events in detail. Detenu Karuna Bala had also stated that he loaded three bags containing Narcotic drugs given by Meeran on his boat and that on seeing the big plastic boat he started towards mid sea and as fire was opened he reduced the speed and it was apprehended. Karuna Bala had also stated as to whom the launch belongs to and under whose orders he and the other three had proceeded from Srilanka to Kayalpattinam and other details as well. Karuna Bala also had admitted that he had smuggled narcotic drugs of Meeran of Kayalpattinam many times earlier to Shri Iwan Fernando and Shri Antony Fernando of Srilanka. The other detenus namely, H.M.Nilame, J.Kamal Roy and Chandra Kumara have merely stated that they had come along with Karuna Bala to Kayalpattinam, to take some parcels to Srilanka which would be given at Kayalpattinam that on 18.10.1999 they could not get the expected good and that on 21.10.1999 they along with Karuna Bala came to Kayalpattinam shore and on seeing the boat the persons in the shore had handed over three parcels to Karuna Bala and that they did not know the contents of the parcels. They have also stated that they saw one plastic boat approaching and they turned the launch and the persons in the boat opened fire and ultimately they have been apprehended and the customs authorities found Narcotic drugs available at the boat. They have also further stated that the Officers searched the shore and found one polythene bag near the bushes and found narcotic drug in the said polythene bag. 9. The four detenus have moved the Special Court, Madurai for bail on 8.11.1999 stating that they are innocent and no narcotic drugs or psychotropic drugs were seized from them at the place and in the manner alleged by the respondent and that the provisions of the NDPS Act had not been complied with. On objections being filed, the bail petitions were dismissed on 16.1.1999. On objections being filed, the bail petitions were dismissed on 16.1.1999. The four detenus have also moved this Court for bail on 25.11.1999 stating that they are innocent and that none of the mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act had been followed. The department filed its counter and on 3.12.1999 the bail petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. The department also filed petition before the Special Court, Madurai on 15.11.1999 for taking samples from the seized property for sending the same to the Central Revenue Laboratories, New Delhi for ascertaining the purity percentage of the seized goods and also applied to the said Court for pre-trial disposal of the seized properties. 10. Thereafter on 7.1.2000, the impugned orders of detention had been passed by the respondent as the respondent had no hesitation in holding that the detenus have engaged themselves in the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs as is evident from the evidence and materials on record and they have to be prevented as they are likely to continue indulging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs on their release on bail. 11. The Detaining Authority as seen from the detention proceedings while noting that the detenus are in judicial custody was satisfied that there is every likelihood of their being released on bail by the Court and on such release, the detenus are likely to engage themselves in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs as is evident from the activities and materials available on record. In that view of the matter, the orders of detention were clamped on 7.1.2000. The orders of detention were served on all the detenus on 29.1.2000 and the grounds of detention were also served on the respective detenu on 29.1.2000 through Additional Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner in all the habeas corpus petitions raised identical contentions. The orders of detention were served on all the detenus on 29.1.2000 and the grounds of detention were also served on the respective detenu on 29.1.2000 through Additional Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner in all the habeas corpus petitions raised identical contentions. It is contended on behalf of the detenus that there is no application of mind, that extraneous materials had been taken into consideration, that there is no material to conclude that the detenus are likely to be released on bail and their likelihood of engaging themselves in similar activities, that the pre-conditions prescribed in Sec.37 of the NDPS Act had not been taken into consideration while arriving at the satisfaction that the detenus are likely to come out on bail and that they will engage themselves in identical activities and that the representation sent on behalf of the detenus have not been considered at all, but on the other hand they were sent back to the detenus friend who is the petitioner herein after a delay while calling upon the petitioner to send a translated copy in English language since no translator is available to translate the representations. After some time, it is claimed that the petitioner resubmitted the same representation while enclosing a letter written in Tamil stating that the objections are in Sinhalese language and he does not know to translate and that the objections be considered. 13. According to the petitioner till date no orders have been passed on the said representation nor any reply had been received by the petitioner to the representation resubmitted on 25.4.2000. It is also being contended that in respect of the three persons other than Karuna Bala, there is no material to conclude that the said three persons were aware of the contents of the parcels handed over at Kayalpattinam sea shore and there being no material and there being no implication by Karuna Bala in his respect the conclusion that the said three persons knowingly engaged themselves in illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs would demonstrate the non-application of mind and on this short ground all the four orders of detention are liable to be quashed and the detenus should be set at liberty. II - Respondent’s case: 14. Though separate counter affidavit has been filed, the contents of the counter affidavits are one and the same. II - Respondent’s case: 14. Though separate counter affidavit has been filed, the contents of the counter affidavits are one and the same. According to the respondent, the detenus in a well organised manner have engaged in such prejudicial activities and all of which taken together reflects the detenus high propensity and potentiality to indulge illicit trafficking in narcotics and in such activities in future and therefore, the orders of detention had been clamped against the four detenus. 15. According to the respondent, the three bags of contraband were seized while it was attempted to be illicitly smuggled out of India by the Vessel “Salucha Sandi” by the sea and one bag of contraband goods was seized from the shore in accordance with Sec.43 of the NDPS Act and there is no requirement to forward the gist of information to higher officer as prescribed in Sec.42(2) of the Act. The Boat referred to was intercepted in the sea off Tiruchendur Kayalpattinam coast and three sacks were found and on search on the shore one sack was found which was also placed on the boat and the four sacks were brought along with the fishing launch to Tuticorin Customs Post Jetty. After completing the seizure, the detailed search cum inventory mahazar was drawn at Tuticorin. 16. Though the petitioner contended that there is difference in the mahazar and the statement of the individual regarding examination of sacks found in the boat but the Srilankans on being questioned confirmed that the sacks contained narcotic drugs. The four Srilankans made voluntary statements and whatever they have stated have been recorded. The contentions put forward by the petitioner in each of the petitions are untenable. No representation had been received from the detenus seeking for copy of the documents. The bail petitions containing statement of retractions were placed before the Detaining Authority and the Detaining Authority had considered the contents of the said bail petitions and was also aware of the retraction. 17. The non-mentioning of retraction of confession statements in the bail petition according to the respondent will not vitiate the detention orders. The bail petitions containing statement of retractions were placed before the Detaining Authority and the Detaining Authority had considered the contents of the said bail petitions and was also aware of the retraction. 17. The non-mentioning of retraction of confession statements in the bail petition according to the respondent will not vitiate the detention orders. The detenus were arrested on 21.10.1999 at 9 am and were produced for remand only on 22.10.1999 at 8.25 p.m. The contention that there has been no application of mind in passing the order of detention and that the grounds of detention is verbatim copy of the mahazar is untenable and the Detaining Authority had passed the orders of detention after arriving at a subjective satisfaction. 18. It is further pointed out that there is no delay in passing the orders of detention. The Detaining Authority had produced all the documents including bail applications, rejection of bail application and orders of detention have been passed after referring to the confession statement retraction and materials placed before the Detaining Authority. As regards the contention that there is no imminent possibility of the detenus coming out on bail, it is contended that the Detaining Authority had taken into consideration of Sec.37 of the NDPS Act and the authority was very much aware about the rejection of the bail petitions and that he was satisfied that there is likelihood of the detenus still filing another bail application and likely to be released on bail, based upon the materials placed before the Court. 19. It is further contended that no representation whatsoever had been received from the detenu or on behalf of the detenu in the PITNDPS unit of the Ministry. As regards the contention of three of the detenus that they have no knowledge of the contents of the parcel as evidenced by their statement, the respondent submits that the statements of the detenus were voluntary and whatever stated by each one of them was recorded. The detenu along with the co-detenus had illegally entered into Indian Waters to smuggle heroin to Srilanka after receiving it from India. According to the respondent, the said three of the detenus knowingly came to India to smuggle Narcotic drugs. It is contended that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority is not liable to be interfered and that there are no merits in the present habeas corpus petitions. 20. According to the respondent, the said three of the detenus knowingly came to India to smuggle Narcotic drugs. It is contended that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority is not liable to be interfered and that there are no merits in the present habeas corpus petitions. 20. As already stated identical counters have been filed in all the four habeas corpus petitions and it is not necessary; to refer to each one of them in detail. III - Admitted Events and Dates: 21. Certain material dates which are not in dispute has to be set out hereunder to appreciate the contentions. (i) On 18.10.1999 Srilankan Launch Salucha Sandi left for Kayalpattinam at 15.00 hrs in the evening with four detenus with instructions to exchange code words and collect parcels from one Meeran of Kayalpattinam for a consideration of Rs.10,000. On 18.10.1999 as the boat arrived at Kayalpattinam shore very late contact could not be made. Hence took back the vessel and stayed in the mid sea as already instructed by the Srilankan Launch Owner. (ii) On 21.10.1999 at 03.00 hrs the boat entered territorial waters and came to Kayalpattinam sea shore, contact effected and detenus loaded three bags containing narcotic drugs given by Kayalpattinam Meeran and on seeing the big plastic boat, the launch started towards the mid sea, which was apprehended after opening fire. On the same day one more bag containing narcotic drugs were traced in the sea shore. (iii) 21.10.1999 - Statements were recorded from the four detenus. (iv) 21.10.1999 - the detenus were arrested and remanded to judicial custody till 5.11.1999. (v) 25.10.1999 - the samples were forwarded to the Chemical Examiner Customs House, Chennai. (vi) 5.11.1999 - remand was extended for a further period and upto 7.1.2000. (vii) 4.11.1999 the Chemical Examiner reported that the samples contain Diacetyl Morphin (Heroin) and a narcotic substance under NDPS Act, 1985. (viii) 8.11.1999 - the detenus moved the Special Court to enlarge them on bail, while retracting from their earlier confession statements made before customs officer. (ix) 16.11.1999 - the department filed their objections before the Special Court and on the same day bail applications are dismissed on merits. (x) 25.11.1999 - the detenus moved the High Court for bail under Sec.439 of Crl.P.C. (xi) 3.12.1999 - the department filed its counter and the bail petitions were dismissed on 3.12.1999 by the High Court. (ix) 16.11.1999 - the department filed their objections before the Special Court and on the same day bail applications are dismissed on merits. (x) 25.11.1999 - the detenus moved the High Court for bail under Sec.439 of Crl.P.C. (xi) 3.12.1999 - the department filed its counter and the bail petitions were dismissed on 3.12.1999 by the High Court. Investigation is being continued and the Meeran of Kayalpattinam is yet to be traced. (xii) 7.1.2000 - the order of detention was passed as well as the grounds of detention at New Delhi. (xiii) 29.1.2000 the order of detention and the grounds of detention were served on the detenus who were in judicial remand in the Central Prison Madurai and the contents were road over and explained to the detenus. With respect to the above dates and events, there is no controversy. 22. It is also admitted that no representation had been forwarded by the detenus themselves so far through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai, where they have been detained. It is the claim of the petitioner that he on their behalf, as their next friend had sent representation in a foreign language viz., Sinhalese to the Secretary to Government of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi by speed post. 23. The Speed post reached the addressee namely, the Secretary to Government, Dept. of Revenue, Ministry of Finance on 3rd March, 2000 and the petitioner had produced the Proof of Delivery in this respect. On 14th March, 2000 the said representation had been returned by the Incharge R & I (R), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi in Dy. Nos.Sp-2110, 2111, 2116 & 2117/2000 addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue as the letters appear to be in "Konkani" language and there is no translator available to translate and requesting the sender to translate to English and resubmit for necessary action. 24. It is claimed that on 16.3.2000, the representation reached back the hands of the petitioner. It is claimed that on 19.5.2000 the same representation had been resubmitted along with a tamil letter expressing that the petitioner knows only Sinhalese language and it is not possible for him to translate it and there is none available to translate. 25. 24. It is claimed that on 16.3.2000, the representation reached back the hands of the petitioner. It is claimed that on 19.5.2000 the same representation had been resubmitted along with a tamil letter expressing that the petitioner knows only Sinhalese language and it is not possible for him to translate it and there is none available to translate. 25. No material has been placed before the Court to show that the petitioner had resubmitted the representation to the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue nor even a postal receipt or any other proof of delivery. 26. On 16.3.2000 the Advisory Board met and on 25.4.2000 the orders of detention were confirmed by the Central Government. On 19.5.2000 the four habeas corpus petitions were filed by the petitioner claiming to be the next friend. 27. The Order of detention has been passed in this case under Sec.3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, hereinafter referred as PIT and NDPS Act. The material portion of the confession statement given by the four detenus and in particular L.H.Karuna Bala disclose the exact modus operandi practically adopted by the four detenus excepting the limited variation namely three of them claiming that they do not know the contents of the parcels loaded on their vessel. It is essential to refer to the following portion of the statement of Karuna Bala who headed the mission as it will not support such a claim of the three other detenus: "About ten years ago, I had smuggled fishing nets from Colombo to Punnakayal with Joseph of Punnakayal. At that time, Joseph took me to Kayalpattinam, Tiruchendur, Manapad, Idinthakarai and many other places and introduced me. At that time, I brought from Ceylon by smuggling goods like Cloves, Fishing nets, Textiles, T.V., Tape Recorder, VCR to Idinthakarai in India and had taken from here goods like Beedi leaves, Kailies, Sarees to Nazeem and Peeries (late) of Negambo. Hence I was caught by Srilankan Customs at that time. Like that when I smuggled 17 bags cloves from Ceylon to Tuticorin in 1990 December, the Tuticorin Customs Officers caught me with the boat. At that time, I had given them a statement. Today you have shown me a copy of the same. I confirm that this is my statement and the signature therein is mine. Like that when I smuggled 17 bags cloves from Ceylon to Tuticorin in 1990 December, the Tuticorin Customs Officers caught me with the boat. At that time, I had given them a statement. Today you have shown me a copy of the same. I confirm that this is my statement and the signature therein is mine. Now, on 18.10.1999, under instructions my boss Jude Royal, myself and my friends Kamal, Nilame and Kumar proceeded at about 03.00 p.m., to Kayalpattinam in India in his boat. My boss told that when we are at the see off Kayalpattinam Meeran of Kayalpattinam would bring sacks containing Narcotic Drugs by his vallam and hand them over to me which I should take to my boss and he would give me Rupees Ten Thousand. If I call the person who brings the sacks of Narcotic Drugs as “Meeran”, in turn be would say my name (Karunapala). Because we came to Kayalpattinam late on 18.10.1999 smuggling did not take place on that day. Hence as already instructed by my boss we stayed at mid-sea and again on 21.10.1999 early morning at about 3.00 hours. We came to Kayalpattinam sea shore in our fishing boat and loaded three sacks containing Narcotic Drugs handed over by Meeran. At that time since we noticed a big plastic boat within sight, we suspected and suddenly rushed towards high seas. But when air/shots were fired, we were afraid and when we reduced speed we four in the boats along with the three sacks containing Narcotic Drugs were apprehended by you. Later when you landed and searched the shores, you got one sack containing Narcotic Drug. Like this previously on many occasions I had smuggled Narcotic Drugs from Meeran of Kayalpattinam for Sri Ivan Fernando, Vattakottuva, Mayhaveve, Sri Lanka and Sri Antony Fernando, Beach Road, Thoduvava joining with many other friends. I can identify this “Meeran”. 28. It would be useful to refer to the statement of at least one other detenu namely H.M. Nilame, as their statements are identical. I can identify this “Meeran”. 28. It would be useful to refer to the statement of at least one other detenu namely H.M. Nilame, as their statements are identical. Material portion of the deposition reads thus: “For the last six months, I have been working in a mechanized fishing boat”Silabam 1010-Saluja Sandi“belonging to Sri Jude, on 18.10.99 on the direction of Sri Jude, I along with Karunapala, Kamal Roy and Chandanakumara came to Kayalpattinam by that boat, we were told that some parcels would be given to us and we should take them to Sri Lanka. As we could not get the expected parcels, we stayed in mid-sea. Again on 21.10.1999 at 0300 hours we came to Kayalpattinam shore. On seeing our boat, three sacks were given to Karunapala by some persons from shore. I do not know the contents of the parcels. At that time we sighted a big plastic boat coming towards us an suddenly we turned our boat towards mid-sea. As the persons from that plastic boat resorted to firing and therefore we reduced our speed and the officers caught us with the boat. They examined our boat and located the three sacks and found they contained Narcotic Drugs. Then, they took us in our boat to the shore. The persons on shore had run away. The Officers searched the shore and found one Polyethylene sack near the thorny bush. They opened it and found to contain narcotic drugs”. The other two detenus have also given identical statements. 29. On the above statements as seen from the order of detention all the detenus have engaged themselves in the transportation of Narcotic Drugs, the parcels of Narcotic Drugs weighing 52.840 Kgs in total were recovered. The detenus have commenced their journey on a fishing launch from Srilankas towards Kayalpattinam Tiruchendur Sea Coast, only with the common object of collecting the parcels of narcotic from a named contact person. On the very first day they could not make a contact and therefore they returned to Mid-sea where they stayed as already instructed and on the early morning i.e., 0300 hours on 21.10.1999 they once again entered the territorial waters came to Kayalpattinam sea shore, effected contact loaded sacks containing narcotic drugs given by Meeran in their boat, and on seeing the plastic boat the launch started towards mid-sea. As the Customs Official opened fire from the plastic boat the detenus reduced the speed and the fishing launch was apprehended with the detenus from whom bags containing narcotic drugs were seized, besides one bag seized on the sea shore. Therefore it is evident that all the four detenus were aware of the mission that they have undertaken namely illicit transportation of narcotic drugs from India to Srilanka for a consideration from the same contact Meeran. It is admitted that the bags containing heroin were seized from the vessel and the test report confirms that the bags contain heroin. 30. In the circumstances the Detaining Authority had arrived at the subjective satisfaction and clamped the order of detention while consciously taking note of the fact that the detenus are in remand and that if they are enlarged on bail they may indulge in identical activities and to prevent them from such illicit transportation of narcotic drugs the order of detention had been clamped. There is sufficient materials for the Detaining Authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the detenus have admittedly engaged themselves in the possession and transportation of narcotic drugs earlier as well as now. All the four detenus have knowingly engaged themselves in the illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and the subjective satisfaction arrived at is not challenged. 31. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised various contentions and they are taken up for consideration in the order in which arguments were advanced. It is contended by the learned counsel that no bail is possible unless Sec.37 of the NDPS Act is satisfied and the therefore the order of detention clamped on the premise that there is likelihood of the detenus coming out on bail or released on bail is a mere possibility and as such the very clamping of detention is uncalled for. 32. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat and another v. Union of India and others, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1196 as well as Rukumani Devi Balasingam v. Joint Secretary to Government of India, 1992 Crl.L.J. 2505 and the decision of the Apex Court in Ahamed Nasser v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1999 S.C.C. (Crl.) 1469. 33. 33. Per contra, the learned Additional Solicitor General contended that there was not only sufficient materials to arrive at the subjective satisfaction and they are likely to continue in indulging in illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs in the event of their being released on bail. 34. The Detaining Authority also points out the detenus are in judicial custody. Even though their earlier bail application before the Economic Offences Court, Madurai was dismissed after contest and their bail application filed before the High Court had been dismissed as withdrawn on 3.12.1999, the Detaining Authority had satisfied himself that there is every likelihood of the detenus filing further bail applications and their likelihood of being released on bail by the Court and in the event of their being released, they are likely to engage themselves in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs as is evident from the confession statements. 35. The Detaining Authority was aware of the detenus being in judicial custody and only with a view to prevent them from indulging in such prejudicial activities in the future, the order of detention has been clamped. In Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1196, it has been held thus: "21, We have given our careful consideration to the aforesaid submission of the learned Attorney General. We are, however, unable to agree with the same. In the grounds of detention the Detaining Authority has only mentioned the fact that the appellants has been remanded to judicial custody till October 13, 1988. The grounds of detention do not show that the Detaining Authority apprehended by the Magistrate on October 13, 1988, and the appellants would be released from custody on October 13, 1988. Nor it there any material in the grounds of detention which may lend support to such an apprehension.“ 36. A Division Bench of this Court in Rukumani Devi Balasingam v. Joint Secreatry to Government of India, 1992 Crl.L.J. 2505 had considered an identical point and held thus: “No doubt true it is that plethora prima facie materials furnished by the statement she made before the customs authorities do indicate her nefarious criminal conduct of indulging in trafficking in Narcotic drugs for the past seven years and making livelihood with ease and grace and without any financial crisis. In such a circumstance, the potentiality for her to engage in prejudicial activities in the near future cannot be ruled out of consideration. But deriving subjective satisfaction on that aspect of the matter alone is not sufficient. It is further necessary for the Detaining Authority to come to the conclusion that there was imminent possibility of her coming out on bail and without being enlarged on bail, there is a bleak possibility of herself engaging in prejudicial activities. No doubt, the Detaining Authority had indicated its mind as to the imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail. It is after all an ipso dixit of the Detaining Authority without any relevant or cogent materials for arriving at such a conclusion.” 37. Based upon the said two pronouncements the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no possibility of the detenus being released on bail and therefore the order of detention is uncalled for. But in a recent pronouncement in Ahmed Nasser v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1999 S.C.C. (Crl.) 1469 after considering the judgment in Dharmendra’s case, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1196, as well as Kamarunnissa v. Union of India, (1991)1 S.C.C. 476 , their Lordships have held thus: “38. Next, returning to the issue under consideration, as to what should be the measure to test the legality of the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority when he records, “there is likelihood of detenu being released on bail”. Even for judging this we have to keep in mind the aforesaid conspectus of the Constitution, the preamble, Objects and Reasons of the Act. When one’s liberty is to be curtailed on the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority with the area of interference by the Court being limited, then within this limitation, the Court must see, in this authority’s privileged area that the Detaining Authority does not stretch itself illegitimately in the exercise of its jurisdiction. 43. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, (1994)1 S.C.C. (Supp.) 597 reliance was placed on the following passage while approving the case of Kamarunnissa v. Union of India, (1991)1 S.C.C. 128 . 43. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, (1994)1 S.C.C. (Supp.) 597 reliance was placed on the following passage while approving the case of Kamarunnissa v. Union of India, (1991)1 S.C.C. 128 . “The decisions of this Court to which our attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioners lay down in no uncertain terms that detention orders can validly be passed against detenus who are in jail, provided the officer passing the order is alive to the fact of the detenus being in custody and there is material that they would indulge in similar activity if set at liberty.” 46. Thus in spite of rejection of the bail application by a Court, it is open to the Detaining Authority to come to his own satisfaction based on the contents of the bail application keeping in mind the circumstances that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail. Merely because no bail application was then pending is no premise to hold that there was no likelihood of his being released on bail. The words "likely to be released" connote chances of being bailed out, in case there be pending bail application or in case if it is moved in future is decided. The word "likely" shows it can be either way. So without taking any such risk if on the facts and circumstances of each case, the type of crime to be dealt with under the criminal law, including contents of the bail application, each separately or all this compositely, all would constitute to be relevant material for arriving at any conclusion. As the contents of bail application would vary from one case to the other, coupled with the different set of circumstances in each case, it may be legitimately possible in a given case for a Detaining Authority to draw an inference that there is likelihood of the detenu releasing on bail. The detention order records: "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 Courts) after 9.6.1992 but nothing prevents you from moving bail applications and possibility of your release on bail cannot be ruled out in the near future. The detention order records: "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 Courts) after 9.6.1992 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." 47. Thus we held, the conclusion of the Detaining Authority on the facts of the present case, "there is likelihood of his being released on bail" cannot be said to be based on no relevant material". 38. In the present case the Detaining Authority had not only referred to the rejection of the bail application by the Economic Offences Court, Madurai but also the dismissal of the bail application moved by the detenus as withdrawn which they moved before the High Court. Therefore it is clear that there is very likelihood of the detenus once again moving the Court to enlarge them on bail 39. Sec.37 of the NDPS Act provides that every offence punishable under the said Act shall be cognisable and no person accused of an offence for a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more under the Act shall be released on bail unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release and where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application if the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The above two conditions are in addition to the limitations prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 40. In the present case the Detaining Authority had consciously applied its mind and has arrived at the subjective satisfaction about the detenus being released on their filing bail application, and according to the Detaining Authority there are compelling reasons for making an order of detention and more so when the detenus are foreign nationals. 40. In the present case the Detaining Authority had consciously applied its mind and has arrived at the subjective satisfaction about the detenus being released on their filing bail application, and according to the Detaining Authority there are compelling reasons for making an order of detention and more so when the detenus are foreign nationals. There are cogent materials before the Detaining Authority on the basis of which it had arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenus are likely to be released in future and while taking into account of the nature of the antecedent activities of the detenus the Detaining Authority had arrived at the subjective satisfaction that after release from the custody the detenus will indulge in such prejudicial activities. 41. In the present case the detenus moved the Economic Offences Court, Madurai for bail which was contested and dismissed. Once again the detenus moved the High Court to enlarge them on bail and the Detaining Authority was satisfied that the detention of the detenus is necessary even though they are in custody. It is not a universal rule that there could be no bail at all in respect of offences punishable under the NDPS Act for a sentence exceeding 5 years. In Meena Jayendra Thakur v. Union of India, (1999)8 S.C.C. 177 Pattanaik, J., speaking for the Bench laid down that when the Detaining Authority on a consideration of all the relevant materials including the fact that there is possibility of the detenu being released on bail thought it fit to get the order of detention served on the detenu, it cannot be held that the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind to the relevant materials and decided and directed to get the order of detention executed. In that respect, it has been held thus: "14. In support of the third contention, Mr.Kotwal relies upon the decision of this Court in Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, (1986)4 S.C.C. 416 . In the aforesaid case, this Court has observed: (SCC pp. 420-421, para 7) "If a man is in custody and there is no imminent possibility of his being released, the power of preventing detention should not be served upon the detenu, the detenu was in Jail. In the aforesaid case, this Court has observed: (SCC pp. 420-421, para 7) "If a man is in custody and there is no imminent possibility of his being released, the power of preventing detention should not be served upon the detenu, the detenu was in Jail. There is no indication that this factor or the question that the said detenu might be released or that there was such a possibility of his release, was taken into consideration by the Detaining Authority properly and seriously before the service of the order." 15. It is this observation which Mr.Kotwal heavily relies upon. But as has been stated earlier in the affidavit filed, it has been indicated that not only the fact that the detenu is in custody on being arrested in some other case was brought to the notice of the Detaining Authority, but also the Detaining Authority on consideration of all relevant material including the fact that there may be a possibility of the detenu being released on bail, thought it fit to get the order of detention served on the detenu. In the premises, the ratio in the aforesaid case will have no application. This is not a case where the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind to the relevant material, but a case where the Detaining Authority considered all the relevant material and decided and directed to get the order executed. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the aforesaid two contentions of Mr.Kotwal." 42. In the present case concedingly the investigation is still pending and the alleged person who had handed over the parcel of heroin to the detenus is yet to be traced and til I date of detention, no charge sheet could be filed. In Union of India v. Thamizharasi, (1995)4 S.C.C. 665 the Apex Court laid down that there is no provision in the NDPS ACT and the scheme of the Act to exclude sub-Sec.(2) of Sec.167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the scheme of the Act indicates that the total period of custody of the accused permissible during the investigation is to be found in Sec.167 of the Crl.P.C. which is expressly applied. 43. 43. In Union of India v. Thamizharasi, (1995)4 S.C.C. 665, their Lordships of the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the power to grant bail specified in clause (b) of Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec.37 of the NDPS Act and in the context of Sub-Sec.(2) of Sec.167 of the Crl.P.C., and held that there being no legislative intent to exclude that applicability of proviso to sub-Sec.(2) of Sec.167 of the Crl.P.C. and in that context, Verma, J., speaking for the Bench while affirming the view of the Madras High Court held that sub-Sec.(2) of Sec.167 of the Crl.P.C. can be invoked on an accused arrested for commission of offences under the NDPS Act who claim release on bail on the expiry of the total period specified therein if the complaint is not filed within that period. Following the said decision, in Manoj v. State of M.P. (1999)2 S.C.C. 715, Thomas, J., speaking for the Bench, held thus: It is how well-nigh settled that benefit of the proviso to Sec.167(2) of the Code would endue to an accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act as well, (vide Union of India v. Thamizharasi, (1995)4 S.C.C. 665 para 14 of the said decision reads thus: "14. In our opinion, in order to exclude the application of the proviso to Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.167, Crl.P.C. in such cases in express provision indicating the contrary intention was required or at least some provision from which such a conclusion emerged by necessary implication. As shown by us, there is no such provision in the NDPS Act and the scheme of the Act indicates that the total period of custody of the accused permissible during investigation is to be found in Sec.167, Crl.P.C. which is expressly applied. The absence of any provision inconsistent therewith in this Act is significant." 44. In the present case the detenus were arrested on 21.10.2000 and the remand was extended. The earlier bail application has been rejected by the Economic Offences Court, Madurai and the subsequent bail application on being opposed had been dismissed as withdrawn. Sub-Sec.(2) of Sec.167, Crl.P.C. applies in respect of case of the detenus herein as held by the Supreme Court. Hence, the Detaining Authority is well justified in arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. Sub-Sec.(2) of Sec.167, Crl.P.C. applies in respect of case of the detenus herein as held by the Supreme Court. Hence, the Detaining Authority is well justified in arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. Further the other accused Meeran is yet to be traced and even admittedly until now Meeran had not been traced and the complaint or charge sheet could not be filed within the period stipulated under sub-Sec.(2) of Sec.167, Crl.P.C. 45. In the circumstances and in the light of the later pronouncement of the Apex Court holding that Sec.167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to the grant of bail under Sec.37 of the NDPS Act, we are of the considered view that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority is not liable to be interfered, as there is every likelihood of the detenus being released on bail. Hence this contention cannot be sustained and it is rejected in the light of the recent pronouncement of the Apex Court holding Sec.167(2), Crl.P.C. is applicable with respect to grant of bail under NDPS Act. 46. Nextly, it was contended that except Karuna Bala, on whose behalf H.C.P.No.784 of 2000 has been moved, which is also one of the habeas corpus petitions taken up for consideration, the other detenus were neither aware, no were conscious of possession of narcotics, nor knowingly in possession of Heroin and therefore the order of detention is vitiated by non application of mind. We have already extracted the confession statement of not only Karuna Bala, but also another detenu wherein it has been admitted that all the four of them for a common purpose joined together and set their vessel on sail from Srilanka with the common object of clearing the consignment as per the directions of their Master. The statement of Karuna Bala also implicates the other three detenus and merely because they had claimed that they are not aware of the contents of the parcel will not be a ground to assume that they were not in possession consciously knowingly. The detenus very much know the consignments and its contents and for a fat consideration they had undertaken the voyage from Srilanka to Indian shore for the collection of the parcel containing heroin. It is not their version that they came for fishing and washed ashore. The detenus very much know the consignments and its contents and for a fat consideration they had undertaken the voyage from Srilanka to Indian shore for the collection of the parcel containing heroin. It is not their version that they came for fishing and washed ashore. In fact as they could not contact Meeran on the earlier night they stayed away at the mid-sea on the night and admittedly they once again contacted Meeran on the early morning of next day. The knowledge is obvious from the fact that only four of them engaged themselves with a common object on a fishing vessel and not even a basket of fish was found or traceable on the vessel. The leader of the group being Karuna Bala and they have undertaken the mission to collect the parcel containing Narcotic substance namely heroin for a huge payment. 47. The statement before the Customs Officer is a material piece of evidence recorded under Sec.108 of the Evidence Act and when it inculpates not only the person who made but also the another person, it is well settled by now it is a substantive evidence against the other person as well. This has been laid down by the Apex Court in Naresh J. Sikhawani v. Union of India, (1995)4 S.C.C. (Supp.) 663. In this respect it has been held thus: “4. It must be remembered that the statement made before the Customs Officials is not a statement recorded under Sec.161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Therefore, it is a material piece of evidence collected by Customs Officials under Sec.108 of the Customs Act. That material incriminates the petitioner inculpating him in the contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act. The material can certainly be used to connect the petitioner in the contravention in as much as Mr.Dudani’s statement clearly inculpates not only himself but also the petitioner. It can therefore, be used as substantive evidence connecting the petitioner with the contravention by exporting foreign currency out of India. Therefore, we do not think that there is any illegality in the offer of confiscation of foreign currency and imposition of penalty. There is no ground warranting reduction of fine.” 48. It can therefore, be used as substantive evidence connecting the petitioner with the contravention by exporting foreign currency out of India. Therefore, we do not think that there is any illegality in the offer of confiscation of foreign currency and imposition of penalty. There is no ground warranting reduction of fine.” 48. Sec.2(c) of the PIT and NDPS Act defines the expression illicit traffic which means and includes engaging in the production, manufacturing, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, concealment, import inter-state, export, interstate, export from India or transiting of narcotic drugs or Psychotropic substances. This definition is an all comprehensive definition and the very Act of the detenus in engaging themselves in export from India or transmitting is an illicit trafficking in relation to narcotic drugs and Psychotropic substances and an order of detention has been clamped under Sec.3(1)(i) of the Act with a view to prevent the detenus from engaging in illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. In the light of the above pronouncements of the Apex Court and in the light of the confession statement made by the detenus before the Customs Officials which is admissible, it is clear that all the detenus had knowingly engaged themselves in illicit transportation of heroin and consequently this contention also fails. 49. Lastly, it was contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the representation submitted on behalf of the detenus by the petitioner herein had not been disposed of expeditiously and till date and therefore Art.22(5) of the Constitution stands infracted and the continuance of detention of the detenus has been rendered unconstitutional and liable to be quashed and the detenus should be set at liberty. 50. In the present case admittedly to representation had been submitted by the detenus through the Superintendent of Central Jail to any one. The petitioner herein claiming to be the next friend of the detenus claims that he had sent a representation in Sinhalese language addressed to the Secretary, Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue R & I Section, New Delhi. 51. It is to be pointed out that the entire representation sent by the petitioner on behalf of the four detenus separately are in a foreign language. There is no reference to the detention order passed by the State Government, and every alphabet used in the representation is in a foreign language. 51. It is to be pointed out that the entire representation sent by the petitioner on behalf of the four detenus separately are in a foreign language. There is no reference to the detention order passed by the State Government, and every alphabet used in the representation is in a foreign language. On receipt of such Utter or representation from the petitioner who lad signed those representations in English which signature is found to be a matured and cultured signature, the said Secretary had circulated the representations for the purpose of translation. The R & I (R) Section, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India on 14th March, 2000 returned back the representation with the following endorsement: “I am sorry to return herewith your four letters which was addressed to The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue in Konkani Language through Speed Post and Department has not a single translator who can translate in English Language so it is requested to send a translate copy for taking necessary action. 2. Original Letters are enclosed.” 52. Concedingly, the petitioner who had been moving the bail application on behalf of the detenus and who is well conversant in English language had not even given a reference to the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority in English or in hindi who had written purposefully everything in a foreign language. The addressee had to necessarily send back the letters as it was under the impression that it is a letter simpliciter and written in Konkan Language or some other foreign language. It at least there is a reference to the detention order passed by the Detaining Authority or a reference is given with reference to the detention order, the representation would have been sent to the concerned Department as it relates to preventive detention order. This also could not be done as every alphabet is in a foreign language which the addressee was not aware of. 53. After receipt of the said endorsement no steps have been taken by the petitioner to translate the same even though he had already moved the H.C.Ps. besides moving the E.C. Court as well as this Court for enlargement of the detenus on bail. The petitioner had purposefully sent a representation in Sinhalese language according to him. 53. After receipt of the said endorsement no steps have been taken by the petitioner to translate the same even though he had already moved the H.C.Ps. besides moving the E.C. Court as well as this Court for enlargement of the detenus on bail. The petitioner had purposefully sent a representation in Sinhalese language according to him. It is also admitted that the petitioner has affixed his signature in English, which is refined and cultured, had approached on of his friends at Madurai who it is claimed forwarded this representation with a Tamil Letter, wherein it is claimed that the petitioner has no one to translate the contents of Sinhalese representation. 54. Curiously it is to be noticed that there is no postal acknowledgment or courier service acknowledgment to show that such a Tamil letter enclosing the representations drafted by the petitioner had been either forwarded, nor there is any material to show that the addressee had acknowledged. It is clear that the petitioner had not at all resubmitted or forwarded such a letter or representation on behalf of detenus while complaining infraction of Art.22(5). 55. It is obviously clear that with a view to create records the petitioner had submitted representation in a foreign language, namely Sinhalese and the entire contents of the letter placed before the Court would show that it contains only Sinhalese alphabets and not even a reference to the detention order passed by the first respondent Detaining Authority, nor there is any reference to indicate that the representation relates to the detention order passed or clamped against the detenus herein. 56. There is nothing to show that the returned representations have been resubmitted by the petitioner. This Court called upon the learned Additional Solicitor General to make his submissions after getting instructions. On behalf of the second respondent it has been asserted, after verification, that no such representation had reached the designated authority which is expected to consider the representation or any department of the Government of India. 57. In fact a chart showing the date-wise sequence of events on the return of letters submitted by the petitioner had been sent by way of Fax message which was also placed before the Court. 57. In fact a chart showing the date-wise sequence of events on the return of letters submitted by the petitioner had been sent by way of Fax message which was also placed before the Court. The Fax message reads thus: “It will be seen therefrom that a representation was sent to the Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue by Speed Post on 1.3.2000. It was received in the office of the Respondent on 3.3.2000. On 3.3.2000, it was sent to the translation Section. On 14.3.2000, Representation was returned to the addressee requesting him to send a translated copy in English since no single translator was willing to translate the Konkan language. The aforesaid representations have not been received in the PITNDPS Unit of the Ministry.” 58. Photocopy of the entire tabal register which has been placed before the Court would show that the alleged representation re-submitted with a Tamil letter had not at all been received by the second respondent or by the R & I(R) Section and the Fax Message in this respect affirms the same. Therefore it is clear that it is a designed move on the part of the petitioner herein to show as if representations been submitted for a designed purpose. In this respect we are constrained to observe that the representations, if any, had been submitted on behalf of the detenus is no representation in the eye of law as it is an attempt to hoodwink every one and a designed move feigning ignorance of the language. In this respect the observation in Kubic Dariusz v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 608, is relevant and it has been held thus: In Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secreatry, Government of Kerala, (1985)3 S.C.R. 697: A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 687, Venilal D.Mehta, his daughter Miss Pranna Mehta and son Bharat Mehta were detained under the COFEPOSA Act by an order dated 19th June, 1984 and the detention order was challenged in this Court under Art.32 of the Constitution of India. They were alleged to have been in possession of 60 gold biscuits of foreign origin. After their arrest the father and his daughter were taken to the Central Excise and Customs Department, Cochin where statements on their behalf were written in English by the daughter. They were alleged to have been in possession of 60 gold biscuits of foreign origin. After their arrest the father and his daughter were taken to the Central Excise and Customs Department, Cochin where statements on their behalf were written in English by the daughter. The father Venilal D.Mehta put his signature in English as Balvant Shah but the daughter told the officers concerned that the correct name of her father Venilal Mehta. In the writ petition it was the case of the father that he could not understand read, speak or write English but could only sign his name in English. He was served with the grounds of detention was served on 30th June, 1984. On 27th May, 1984 the father made a representation in Gujarati to the Detaining Authority praying that he was unable to read and write either in English or Hindi or Malayalam and the grounds of detention may be given to him duly translated in Gujarati. In Court it was contended that the order and grounds should have been communicated to the detenus in the language or languages they understood and Venilal Mehta understood nothing except Gujarati. He did not understood English or Hindi or Malayalam. The Hindi translation was admittedly furnished beyond a period of 5 days and no exceptional circumstances were stated to exist. Following Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 911 and considering the definite case of Venilal Mehta, this Court observed that the facts revealed that the detenu Venilal Mehta was constantly in the company of his daughter as well as son and both of them knew English very well. The father signed a document in Gujarati which was written in English and which was his mercy petition in which he completely accepted the guild of the involvement in smuggling. That document contained a statement-"I myself am surprised to understand what prompted me to involve in such activity as dealing in imported gold." On those facts and circumstances this Court observed: "There is no rule of law that commonsense should be put in cold storage while considering constitutional provisions for safeguards against misuse of powers by authorities though these constitutional provisions should be strictly construed. Bearing in mind this salutary principle and having regard to the conduct of the detenu Venilal Mehta especially in the mercy petition and other communications, the version of the detenu Venilal in feigning lack of any knowledge of English must be judged in the proper perspective. He was, however, in any event given by 30th June, 1984 the Hindi translation of the grounds of which he claimed ignorance. The gist of the annexures which were given in Malayalam language had been stated in the grounds. That he does not know anything except Gujarati is merely the ipso dixit of Venilal Mehta and is not the last word and the Court is not denuded of its powers to examine the truth. He goes to the extent that he signed the mercy petition not knowing the contents, not understanding the same merely because his wife sent it though he was sixty years old and he was in business and he was writing at a time when he was under arrest, his room had been searched, gold biscuits had been recovered from him. Court is not the place where one can sell all tales. The Detaining Authority came to the conclusion that he knew both Hindi and English. It had been stated so in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent. We are of the opinion that the detenu Venilal Mehta was merely feigning ignorance of English". (Italics Supplied) The observations made by their Lordships of the Apex Court would squarely apply to this case and we will be justified in holding that no representation, with a bona fide object or intention had been made which requires expeditious consideration in terms of Art.22(5). 59. In Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secreatry, Government of Kerala, (1985)3 S.C.R. 697: A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 687, Sabyasachi Mukharji. J., speaking for the Bench held thus: "81. As the statement of objects and reasons of 1975 Amending Act state that smuggling of foreign exchange racketeering and related activities have a deleterious effect on the national economy and thereby a serious adverse effect on the security of State. The society must be protected from that social menace by immobilizing the persons by detention of the persons engaged in those operations and to disrupt the machinery established for furthering smuggling and foreign exchange manipulations (statement of objects and reasons of 1975 Act). The society must be protected from that social menace by immobilizing the persons by detention of the persons engaged in those operations and to disrupt the machinery established for furthering smuggling and foreign exchange manipulations (statement of objects and reasons of 1975 Act). Preventive detention unlike punitive detention which is to punish for the wrong done, is to protect the society by preventing wrong being done. Though such powers must be very cautiously exercised nor to undermine the fundamental freedoms guaranteed to our people, the procedural safeguards are to ensure that, yet these must be looked at from a pragmatic and common sense point of view. The exercise of the power of preventive detention must be strictly within safeguard provided. We are governed by the Constitution and our Constitution embodies a particular philosophy of government and a way of life and that necessarily requires understanding between those who exercise powers and the people over whom or in respect of whom such power is exercised. The purpose of exercise of all such power by the Government must be to promote common well-being and must be to subserve the common good. It is necessary to protect therefore the individual rights in so far as practicable which are not inconsistent with the security and well-being of the society. Grant of power imposes limitation on the use of the power. There are various procedural safeguards and we must construe those in proper light and from pragmatic common sense point of view. We must remember that observance of written law about the procedural safeguards for the protection of the individual is normally the high duty of public official but in all circumstances not the highest. The law of self-preservation and protection of the country and national security may claim in certain circumstances higher priority." 82. As had been set out by Thomas Jefferson "To lose our country by a scruplous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus ‘‘Thomas Jefferson, Writings (Washington ad.), v. 542-545 and The Constitution Between friends by Louis fisher 47). By the aforesaid approach both justice and power can be brought together and whatever is just may be powerful and whatever may be powerful may be just." (Italics supplied) 60. By the aforesaid approach both justice and power can be brought together and whatever is just may be powerful and whatever may be powerful may be just." (Italics supplied) 60. The petitioner who claims to be the next friend of the detenus, had designedly with calculated motive sent letters in Sinhalese language and it is not as if it is by detenus or on their behalf as a representation. It may be that it would have been possible for the second respondent to have translated the same into English if the representation is in Sinhalese language. But the translator had indicated that it is in Konkani language as it resembles Konkani alphabets and requested the petitioner to submit a translated copy. The petitioner did not resubmit the same and no material has been placed to show that the petitioner has re-submitted the Tamil letter enclosing the very same representation. No acknowledgment has been placed. The petitioner had purposefully feigned the lack of language and there is nothing to show that the petitioner dad made a representation much less with respect to the detention of the four detenus herein with the object of getting them considered by the appropriate authority, but it is for defeating the constitutional guarantee and ulterior purpose of the petitioner is evident and it is a clear case to defeat the preventive detention, which is impermissible. 61. In the circumstances, we hold the Art.22(5) of The Constitution had not been infracted as there is no representation at all made in the eye of law. Hence, the last contention also fails. All the contentions fail as they are not sustainable in law. 62. In the result, all the four habeas corpus petitions are dismissed.