JUDGMENT - DESAI RANJANA, J.:-The petitioner is the brother of one Naresh Vazirmal Ailani, who has been detained under an order of detention dated 6-1-2003 issued under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, the COFEPOSA Act). The order of detention along with the grounds of detention was served on the detenu on 20-1-2003. In this petition the said order of detention is under challenge. 2. The order of detention is issued with a view to prevention the detenu in future from smuggling goods. It appears from the grounds of detention that the detenu and the co-detenu-Shripad Kulkarni are active members of smuggling syndicate comprising Mohan Pradeep and others. The modus operandi adopted by the syndicate is to recruit such persons for smuggling in foreign marked gold bars and mobile phones in large quantities by concealing the same. Preliminary investigation revealed that during the last two years preceding the order of detention. The detenu had made about 35 visits to Dubai and the co-detenu had made about 8 to 10 visits to Dubai. The detenu and co-detenu were intercepted at the Sahar Airport on 25-10-2002 when they arrived from Dubai by Cathay Pacific Flight. Forty four gold bars were recovered from the baggage of the detenu. Forty four gold bars were also recovered from the baggage of the co-detenu. 3. In his statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, the detenu has admitted that in the past, he has visited Dubai on 35 occasions and that he had smuggled foreign gold bars to India. The co-detenu-Shripad Kulkarni has admitted in his statement that he had made five trips to Dubai and smuggled gold to India. On the basis of this the present detention order is issued. 4. We have heard at some length Mrs. Ansari the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mrs. Ansari firstly contended that the order of detention is issued in a hurry. The proposal of the detenu and the co-detenu was forwarded on 14-11-2002. It was placed before the Screening Committee on 20-11-2002. Last document is dated 13-12-2002. The sponsoring authority forwarded the proposal along with the documents on 18-12-2002 and on 6-1-2003, the Detaining Authority issued the order of detention. The proposal of the detenu and the co-detenu was forwarded on 14-11-2002. It was placed before the Screening Committee on 20-11-2002. Last document is dated 13-12-2002. The sponsoring authority forwarded the proposal along with the documents on 18-12-2002 and on 6-1-2003, the Detaining Authority issued the order of detention. According to the learned Counsel, there was hardly any time for the Detaining Authority to apply his mind to all the documents placed before him. The order of detention is therefore, issued in a hurry and indicates non-application of mind of the Detaining Authority. 5. We are unable to accept this submission of the learned Counsel. We have perused the affidavit filed by Mr. Satish Tripathi, the then Detaining Authority. In his affidavit, the Detaining Authority has stated as under: "6. With reference to Paragraph (i) of the writ petition, it is stated that the Screening Committee cleared the proposal of the detenu on 20-11-2002. Thereafter, the Sponsoring Authority forwarded the proposal of the detenu and the co-detenu on 18-12-2002 along with the documents from Sr. No. 1 to 158 in the compilation of documents which was received by the department on the same day. The concerned Assistant prepared the detailed note regarding the proposal and forwarded the same along with the documents to the Desk Officer. The Desk Officer after going through the papers forwarded the same to the Deputy Secretary on 19-12-2002. The Deputy Secretary forwarded the same to me on 19-12-2002. I considered all the documents and approved the proposal of the detenu and the co-detenu on 22-12-2002. Thereafter, the papers were forwarded along with draft grounds of detention to the Deputy Secretary. He carefully went through the same and by his endorsement dated 26-12-2002 forwarded the papers to me. It is stated that 25-12-2002 was holiday. I once again carefully went through the papers and by my endorsement dated 28-12-2002 raised certain queries, and the said papers were forwarded to the Deputy Secretary. The Deputy Secretary after considering the queries along with the reply to the said queries forwarded the file by his endorsement dated 31-12-2002 to me. It is stated that 29-12-2002 was holiday. Thereafter, on 31-12-2002 after receiving the papers, there were further queries raised by me. On 2-1-2003, the papers were forwarded to the concerned Assistant who after going through the papers forwarded the same to the Deputy Secretary. It is stated that 29-12-2002 was holiday. Thereafter, on 31-12-2002 after receiving the papers, there were further queries raised by me. On 2-1-2003, the papers were forwarded to the concerned Assistant who after going through the papers forwarded the same to the Deputy Secretary. The Deputy Secretary after replying the said queries forwarded the papers to me by his endorsement dated 3-1-2003. The said papers were received by me on 4-1-2003 late in the evening. It is stated that 6-1-2003 was holiday. On 6-1-2003 I carefully went through the papers and contemporaneously issued the order of detention on 6-1-2003." 6. It is clear from the above averments of the affidavit in apply that the Detaining Authority had applied his mind to the material placed before him and in fact, he has raised queries on two occasions. The queries raised by him were answered. The Deputy Secretary forwarded the papers to him by endorsement dated 3-1-2003. The said papers were received by him on 4-1-2003. On 6-1-2003, he carefully went through the papers and contemporaneously issued the order of detention. This assertion made by the Detaining Authority in the affidavit in reply established that the detention order is issued after due application of mind. Paucity of time may not always indicate non-application of mind. There is intrinsic evidence on record to suggest that the Detaining Authority has issued the present detention order after due application of mind. We have carefully read and considered the grounds of detention. We are unable to find any instances of non-application of mind in them. We, therefore reject the said submission. 7. Mrs. Ansari then contended that the grounds of detention have not been drafted by the Detaining Authority. She submitted that in the affidavit of the Detaining Authority he has stated that the draft grounds of detention were placed before him by the Deputy Secretary. According to Mrs. Ansari, the affidavit indicates that the Detaining Authority has adopted the same draft grounds of detention were placed before him by the Deputy Secretary. According to Mrs. Ansari, the affidavit indicates that the Detaining Authority has adopted the same draft grounds of detention. She submitted that on this ground alone the order of detention deserves to be set aside. In this connection, reliance is placed on (Jai Singh others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir)1, 1985(1) S.C.C. 561 . According to Mrs. Ansari, the affidavit indicates that the Detaining Authority has adopted the same draft grounds of detention. She submitted that on this ground alone the order of detention deserves to be set aside. In this connection, reliance is placed on (Jai Singh others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir)1, 1985(1) S.C.C. 561 . In that case, the dossier submitted by the police was adopted by the Detaining Authority with some minor changes. The Supreme Court set aside the order of detention on the ground of non-application of mind. The Supreme Court observed that it was difficult to find greater proof of non-application of mind. It emphasized that the liberty of a subject is a serious matter and it is not to be trifled with in this casual, indifferent and routine manner. Mrs. Ansari also relied on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 855 of 1986 (Prakash Tandel v. State of Maharashtra)2, decided on 14-11-1986 where relying on Jai Singh case (supra), similar view was taken. 8. We have already referred to in the averments made by the Detaining Authority in his affidavit. Though it is stated that the draft grounds of detention were forwarded, it is clear from the affidavit that the Detaining Authority has not adopted the draft grounds of detention. He has stated that he carefully went through them and by his endorsement dated 28-12-2002, he raised certain queries. The said papers were then forwarded to the Deputy Secretary. The Deputy Secretary considered the queries of the Detaining Authority. He then answered the queries and forwarded the file with his endorsement dated 31-12-2002 to the Detaining Authority. On 31-12-2002 the Detaining Authority again raised certain queries. On 2-1-2003 the said papers were forwarded to the concerned assistant, who forwarded them to the Deputy Secretary. The Deputy Secretary answered the queries forwarded by the Detaining Authority. He then sent the papers back to the Detaining Authority, with his endorsement dated 3-1-2003. The papers were received by the Detaining Authority on 4-1-2003 late in the evening. On 6-1-2003, the Detaining Authority carefully considered all the papers and issued the order of detention. This shows that the Detaining Authority had applied his mind to all the papers placed before him. The papers were received by the Detaining Authority on 4-1-2003 late in the evening. On 6-1-2003, the Detaining Authority carefully considered all the papers and issued the order of detention. This shows that the Detaining Authority had applied his mind to all the papers placed before him. The fact that on two occasions, he sent queries to the Deputy Secretary makes it clear that he did not merely adopt the draft grounds of detention. It appears that it was only when he was satisfied about the sufficiency of material and the need to issue the detention order that he passed the detention order. In the affidavit, he has specifically denied that the draft grounds of detention were verbatim adopted by him. He has denied the allegation that the order of detention suffers from non-application of mind. He has stated that he had personally scanned all the documents and formulated the grounds of detention. He has denied piecemeal consideration of the documents. In our opinion, therefore the facts of this case can be distinguished from the facts which were before the Supreme Court in Jai Singh's case (supra). This, argument of the learned Counsel must, therefore, fail. 9. Mrs. Ansari then urged that certain documents supplied to the detenu are illegible. She has drawn our attention to the bail order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, on 12-11-2002. We have carefully perused the copy of the bail order served on the detenu. In our opinion, though the copy is slightly blurred, it is readable. The learned Counsel also urged that certain documents, which contain the details of mobile phone used by the detenu, are also not readable. We are unable to accept this contention also. We have seen the said documents, which are served on the detenu. In our opinion, they cannot be described as illegible documents. We, therefore, reject this submission of the learned Counsel. 10. The learned Counsel then urged that, on an application preferred by the detenu dated 10-12-2002, the conditional order granting bail to the detenu was relaxed on 6-1-2003, she submitted that on that day, the detenu and the co-detenu were present in the Court till 6.00 p.m. Even then the order of detention was not served on them. The order of detention came to be belatedly served on the detenu on 20-1-2003. Mrs. The order of detention came to be belatedly served on the detenu on 20-1-2003. Mrs. Ansari, therefore, submitted that this delay, therefore, vitiates the detention. In our opinion, this submission also cannot be accepted. It is stated in the affidavit filed by the Sponsoring Authority that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed the order of relaxing condition on 6-1-2003. The detenu and the co-detenu were directed to attend the office of the DRI on first and third Monday of each month for two months from 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. It is further stated that 6-1-2003 was the first Monday of the month. Since, a copy of the order was received late in the evening on 6-1-2003, the detenu did not attend the office of the Sponsoring Authority on 6-1-2003. Moreover, the Sponsoring Authority had also received the order late in the evening on 6-1-2003. Hence, whether the detenu and the co-detenu were present in the Court throughout the day on the said date was not known to the Sponsoring Authority. It is a fact, which is within the knowledge of the detenu and the co-detenu. It is further stated that on 8-1-2003, COFEPOSA Cell had informed the sponsoring authority about the order of detention dated 6-1-2003. The executive authority had requested the sponsoring authority to furnish photographs of the detenu and the co-detenu were forwarded to them. Thereafter, on 20-1-2003 which was a third Monday, when the detenu and the co-detenu attended the office of DRI as per the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, the order of detention was served on them. 11. In his affidavit, the Detaining Authority has stated that on 6-1-2003 late in the evening, he issued the order of detention. On 7-1-2003, the order of detention and the compilation of documents were sent to the Executing Authority i.e. the Commissioner of Police, Thane, for executing them on the detenu and the co-detenu. Mr. L.P. Sawant, Police Sub-Inspector, attached to the Crime Branch, Thane, has also filed his affidavit explaining the time taken to serve the order of detention. He has stated that on 8-1-2003 the order of detention along with committal order, grounds of detention, index and compilation of documents along with the translation in the language known to the detenu was received in the office of Senior Inspector of Police, P.C.B., C.I.D., Thane, visited the residence of the detenu. He has stated that on 8-1-2003 the order of detention along with committal order, grounds of detention, index and compilation of documents along with the translation in the language known to the detenu was received in the office of Senior Inspector of Police, P.C.B., C.I.D., Thane, visited the residence of the detenu. However, the detenu was not found. Again, on 13-1-2003, 15-1-2003 and on 18-1-2003, efforts were made to serve the detention order. The order could not be served because the detenu was not traceable. On 20-1-2003 as per the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the detenu attended the office of the Sponsoring Authority and the order of detention was served on him. If these three affidavits are read together, it is apparent that there is no delay in executing the order of detention. We, therefore reject this submission of the learned Counsel. 12. Lastly, the learned Counsel urged that nine copies of representations were submitted by the detenu. She submitted that inspite of this, it appears that the authorities have not considered the representations independently. She draw our attention to the affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra. He has stated that the composite representation of the detenu addressed to the Detaining Authority, State Government, Central Government and the Advisory Board dated 11-2-2003 was received by the Home Department on 15-2-2003. After receiving the representation of the detenu the concerned assistant perused the same and forwarded it to him on 15-2-2003. He perused the same and forwarded it to the Detaining Authority on 17-2-2003. Thereafter, the Detaining Authority considered the representation of the detenu independently and expeditiously and rejected the same on 18-2-2003. On the same day, i.e. on 18-2-2003, the papers were forwarded to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Mantralaya, Mumbai. He went through the papers and rejected the representation on 18-2-2003. Mrs. Ansari contended that this shows that the same representation has travelled from the Detaining Authority to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Mantralaya. Obviously, therefore the endorsement made by the Detaining Authority that he had rejected the representation must have been forwarded to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Mantralaya. It is possible that the Additional Chief Secretary would get influenced by the endorsement of the Detaining Authority. There is therefore, no independent consideration of the representation. 13. We are not impressed by this submission. It is possible that the Additional Chief Secretary would get influenced by the endorsement of the Detaining Authority. There is therefore, no independent consideration of the representation. 13. We are not impressed by this submission. Merely because a copy of the same representation has travelled from the Detaining Authority to the Additional Chief Secretary it cannot be concluded that there is no independent consideration of the representation. The Detaining Authority has on oath, stated that the Deputy Secretary forwarded the representation to him on 17-2-2003. On 18-2-2003, he went through the representation, independently considered it and rejected it. We have no reason to doubt this statement made by the Detaining Authority. The Deputy Secretary, in his affidavit has also stated that the affidavit has also stated that the Additional Chief Secretary to whom the representation was sent has considered the same independently and rejected it. We are unable to dismiss these averments as untrue. This submission of the learned Counsel must also, therefore fail. No other points were urge by the learned Counsel. In view of this, in our opinion, the impugned order of detention must be confirmed and is confirmed as such. 14. Petition is rejected. Petition dismissed. -----