E.Padmanabhan, J.: As against the petitioner herein the first respondent clamped an order of detention on 21.4.2003 under Sec.3(1)(i) of The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods in future. 2. As seen from the grounds of detention, on 20.3.2003, the detenu herein, holder of Indian Passport arrived at Anna International Airport, Chennai from Singapore. After immigration formalities, while carrying hand baggages and one brown colour cardboard carton without tag, he was intercepted by Officers of Air Intelligence Unit on suspicion that his bags might contain contraband goods and was questioned. The detenu declared the value of the goods at Rs.25,000. Being not satisfied, the detenu and his baggage were brought to the Air Intelligence Unit room for detailed examination. The detenu identified his baggage in the presence of witnesses and also produced relevant claim tags. When the detenu was questioned about the missing tag on the cardboard, he replied that he had removed and tore the tag to avoid customs examination. 3. In the presence of witnesses the baggage were examined. The black colour “Kenny” zipper handbag found to contain three Panasonic Video Cameras and 215 Cellphone Batteries. The blue colour “Worldwide Emcora” zipper bag found to contain 30 Sanyo Cordless phones, 155 cellphone adaptors 10 Nokia 3610 Cellphones without accessories, 20 Nokia 3315 cellphones without accessories, 10 Nokia 3350 Cellphones without accessories, 4 Nokia 8250 Cellphones without accessories and 6 Nokia 6510 Cellphones without accessories. On the inspection of brown colour cardboard carton without tag, it was found to contain Pioneer DVD Player, Samsung VCD Player and cellphones. Thus innumerable items in commercial/trade quantity were found and the total value being 7,93,850. Very many items and accessories like Cellphones of various makes were found concealed inside the Sansui VCD Player. The detenu attempted to smuggle the goods without the knowledge of Customs by way of concealment and misdeclaration. The detenu also made a voluntary statement before the Customs Of-ficers. While narrating the sequence of events which lead to the seizure of goods the detenu also confessed that he had travelled ten times to Singapore. 4. The detenu attempted to smuggle the goods without the knowledge of Customs by way of concealment and misdeclaration. The detenu also made a voluntary statement before the Customs Of-ficers. While narrating the sequence of events which lead to the seizure of goods the detenu also confessed that he had travelled ten times to Singapore. 4. The detenu by attempting to import the electronic goods in trade quantity by concealment inside the VCD player and cordless phones to avoid detection by Customs and with the intention of evading customs duty and by misdeclaring the quantity/contents of the baggage, which may lead to confiscation under Sec.111(d), (l) and (m), of the Customs Act, read with Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, besides Sec.77 of the Customs Act, and also has committed offences punishable under Secs. 132 and 135 and rendered himself punishable under Sec. 112 of the Act. The detenu was arrested on 21.3.2003 and produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Of-fences-II, Egmore and he was remanded to judicial custody up to 4.4.2003. The counsel for the detenu filed a Bail Petition. The wife also sent a representation and sought for release. The remand of the detenu was extended. The total value of the goods seized was Rs.7,93,850 (CIF) equivalent to Rs. 11,90,775 (MV). In view of the above facts, the State Government arrived at the subjective satisfaction and clamped the order of detention after taking into consideration of all the facts and materials. 5. Mr.B.Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order of detention is liable to be quashed as there is violation of principles of natural justice in that material papers such as remand extension, bail rejection were not furnished to the detenu, but placed before the Advisory Board by the Government without information and without apprising the same to the detenu. The learned counsel however admitted filing of a special report which show the remand extension. 6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner nextly contended that there were number of corrections in the grounds of detention and initials which would show the casualness in passing the detention order and the same vitiates the order as one passed without application of mind. But, factually, we find there is neither correction, nor casualness in passing the detention order. 7. But, factually, we find there is neither correction, nor casualness in passing the detention order. 7. The respondents filed their counter and it is contended that the contentions advanced by the petitioner are unsustainable and there is no violation of principles of natural justice, that all the documents relied upon by the detaining authority were furnished to the detenu and merely because copies of Bail Application and rejection were not furnished, the same will not prejudice the detenu as they are not relied upon documents and that apart they are the petitioner’s own documents. 8. The counsel on either side made their submissions and placed reliance on various pronouncements of the Supreme Court as well as this Court. The pronouncements which are relevant will be referred during discussions. 9. Here and now it has to be pointed out that all the relied upon materials by the detaining authority were furnished to the detenu and there is no controversy in this respect. However, with ingenuity, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner advanced two contentions as if there is violation of principles of natural justice. In this respect we have to consider the applicability of the principles of natural justice in respect of preventive detention. 10. In Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, (1975)3 S.C.C. 198 , a Five Judges Bench of the Supreme Court laid down that elaborate rules of natural justice are excluded either expressly or by necessary implication where provisions are made in the statute and when the statutory provisions excludes the application of any or all the principles of natural justice, then the Court does not completely ignore the mandate of the Legislature. The Five Judges Bench held that the principles of natural justice in so far as they are compatible with the detention laws find place in Art.22 itself and procedures in the statutory provisions provides for fair consideration. 11. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Senthilkumar, (1999)2 S.C.C. 646 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the principles of natural justice of affording an opportunity of being heard, which is embedded in Art.22(5) of the Constitution, albeit opportunity of being heard is afforded after making the order of detention, but before confirming the same, and therefore there is no necessity to invoke the principles of natural justice de hors Art.22(5) of The Constitution. While dealing with the facts of that case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held thus: “9. Two valuable safeguards for the detenu are incorporated in Clause (5) of Art.22 of the Constitution of India. It reads thus: “22(5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order“. The provision extracted above obliges the detaining authority to communicate to the person detained the grounds on which the order of detention has been made and to afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. The principle of natural justice of affording an opportunity of being heard is thus embedded in Clause (5) of Art.22 of the Constitution, albeit opportunity of being heard is afforded after making the order of detention but before confirming the same as the authority has the power to revoke, cancel or confirm the order. Therefore, there is no necessity to invoke the principle of natural justice, de hors Art.22(5) of the Constitution in this case as the grievance of the firs respondent can be dealt with under that provision.” 12. In V.C.Mohan v. Union of India, (2002)3 S.C.C. 451 , the Supreme Court expressed a caution that relevant material having a direct im-pact and in the event of non placing of same before the detaining authority would vitiate the detention as it is not only a lapse but a serious lapse on the part of the officials resulting in the order of detention to be declared unlawful and illegal. 13. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. B.Subbarajamma,A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 389, the quashing of an order of detention by the Andhra Pradesh High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court since before the Advisory Board high ranking officers of the Police department were heard and others including the detaining authority, but the detenu was denied assistance of a friend, who could have made an effective representation before the Advisory Board. In that context, the Supreme Court held thus: "11. These are the two important constitutional safeguards. The Advisory Board is a constitutional imperative. It has an important function to perform. In that context, the Supreme Court held thus: "11. These are the two important constitutional safeguards. The Advisory Board is a constitutional imperative. It has an important function to perform. It has to form an opinion whether there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned. There is no particular procedure prescribed for the Advisory Board since there is no lis to be adjudicated. Sec.11 of the Act provides only the broad guidelines or observance. The Advisory Board, however, may adapt any procedure depending upon varying circumstances. But any procedure that it adapts must satisfy the procedural fairness. We need not deal with this aspect in detail since the Advisory Board consist of persons who are or have been or are qualified to be appointed as Judges of a High Court. They are men of wisdom and learning. Their report as envisaged under Sec.11(2) of the Act should provide specifically in a separate part whereof as to "Whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned." That opinion as to sufficient cause is required to be reached with equal opportunity to the State as well as the person concerned, no mater what the procedure. It is important for laws and authorities not only to be just but also appear to be just. Therefore, the action that gives the appearance of unequal treatment or unreasonableness whether or not any substance in it should be avoided by the Advisory Board. We consider that it must be stated and stated clearly and unequivocally that it is the duty of the Advisory Board to see that the case of detenu is not adversely affected by the procedure it adopts. It must be ensured that the detenu is not handicapped by the unequal representation or refusal of access to a friend to represent his case." 14. The above pronouncement is being relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel to show that all the facets of principles of natural justice apply to preventive detention, which argument in our considered view is too wide a proposition to accept and it cannot be sustained in the light of the earlier two pronouncements referred to above. The above pronouncement is being relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel to show that all the facets of principles of natural justice apply to preventive detention, which argument in our considered view is too wide a proposition to accept and it cannot be sustained in the light of the earlier two pronouncements referred to above. 15.Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent relied upon the pronouncement in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1640 and contended that it is not every and any document that is required to be furnished and being a document to which a mere incidental reference is made, it need not be furnished and denial of such document in no way results in deprivation of the right to make an effective representation, nor it has prejudiced the detenu. It was further highlighted that it is not mere non-supply alone but it must further be shown that such non furnishing has impaired the detenu to make effective and purposeful representation. The Supreme Court in Kamarunissa case held thus: "14....It is not sufficient to say that the detenus were not supplied the copies of the documents in time on demand but it must further be shown that the non-supply has impaired the detenus’ right to make an effective and purposeful representation. Demand of any or every document however irrelevant it may be for the concerned detenu, merely on the ground that there is a reference thereto in the grounds of detention cannot vitiate an otherwise legal detention order. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this behalf but what is essential is that the detenu must show that the failure to supply the documents before the meeting of the Advisory Board had impaired or prejudiced his right, however, slight or insignificant it may be. In the present case, except stating that the documents were not supplied before the meeting of the Advisory Board, there is no pleading that it had resulted in the impairment of his right nor could counsel for the petitioners points out any such prejudice....” 16. In the present case, except stating that the documents were not supplied before the meeting of the Advisory Board, there is no pleading that it had resulted in the impairment of his right nor could counsel for the petitioners points out any such prejudice....” 16. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 also relied upon the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 2261 and pointed out that documents neither relied upon nor placed before the detaining authority nor referred to need not be supplied to the detenu. The Supreme Court in the said decision held thus: “7....At this juncture it is also necessary to note that such of those documents which are not material and to which a casual or passing reference is made in the grounds, need not be supplied. In Mst.L.M.S.Ummu Saleema v. B.B.Gujaral,(1981)3S.C.C.317, after referring to some of the earlier decisions of this Court, it was held thus: “It is, therefore, clear that every failure to furnish copy of a document to which reference is made in the grounds of detention is not an infringement of Art.22(5), fatal to the order of detention. It is only failure to furnish copies of such documents as were relied upon by the detaining authority, making it difficult for the detenu to make an effective representation, that amounts to a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Art.22(5). In our view it is unnecessary to furnish copies of documents to which causal or passing reference may be made in the course of narration of facts and which are not relied upon by the detaining authority in making the order of detention.” It will therefore be seen that failure to supply each and every document merely referred to and not relied upon will not amount to infringement of the rights guaranteed under Art.22(5) of the Constitution. We may of course add that whether the document is casually or passingly referred to or whether it has also formed the material for arriving at the subjective satisfaction depends upon the facts and grounds in each case. In the instant case we are satisfied that these two documents were not placed before the detaining authority nor they were referred to or relied upon.” 17. In the instant case we are satisfied that these two documents were not placed before the detaining authority nor they were referred to or relied upon.” 17. Syed Farooq Mohammad v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1597 has been relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent that Art.22(5) of the Constitution mandates relevant documents referred to in the grounds of detention and considered by the detaining authority while arriving at the subjective satisfaction are to be supplied and not otherwise. In this respect, the Supreme Court held thus: “10.....Art.22(5) of the Constitution, undoubtedly, mandates that all the relevant documents referred to in the grounds of detention and which are considered by the detaining authority in coming to his subjective satisfaction for clamping an order of detention are to be supplied to the detenu. The said document was not considered by the detaining authority in coming to his subjective satisfaction and in making the impugned order of detention. The non furnishing to the detenu of the said document i.e., the bail application and the order passed thereon, does not affect in any manner whatsoever the detenu’s right to make an effective representation in compliance with the provision of Art.22(5) of the Constitution of India. This ground, therefore, is wholly untenable." 18. In the light of the above pronouncements we have to consider the contention advanced by the learned senior counsel. According to the learned senior counsel the respondents have failed to furnish the remand extension as well as the order rejecting the bail. In this case, as seen from the paper book, a special report submitted alone has been placed before the detaining authority to show that the detenu is still a remand prisoner and remand has been extended. The said document has been admittedly furnished. 19. Rejection of bail which is later in point of time to the clamping of detention is neither relied upon, nor referred to. Therefore, the two documents in respect of which emphasis has been made, in our considered view, need not be furnished to the detenu,and at any rate the same has not in any manner resulted or caused prejudice to the detenu. Those documents in respect of which the contention has been advanced by the learned senior counsel are neither relied upon documents nor material documents which are required to be furnished. Those documents in respect of which the contention has been advanced by the learned senior counsel are neither relied upon documents nor material documents which are required to be furnished. Hence, this contention advanced by the learned senior counsel has to fail. 20. While advancing the said contention, it was further contended that these documents were not furnished to the detenu, but they were placed before the Advisory Board which is in violation of principles of natural justice. This contention also, in our considered view cannot be sustained in the light of the above referred pronouncements of the Supreme Court as admittedly what has been relied upon or materials whatever relied upon to arrive at the subjective satisfaction have already been furnished to the detenu. That apart, no prejudice has been shown or pleaded by the detenu anywhere. 21. It is incumbent on the part of the detenu to establish prejudice caused by non furnishing of the two documents. Merely matters which are incidental, were placed before the Advisory Board, it will not prejudice the detenu at all. The subjective satisfaction arrived at while taking into consideration of the fact that the detenu was a remand prisoner, and there is imminent possibility of his coming out on bail and in such contingency he is likely to engage himself in activities prejudicial. Therefore, what is relevant has been taken into consideration and the subjective satisfaction has been arrived at. Therefore, the contentions fail. The detention has been placed before the Advisory Board and the entire material which were relied upon were already placed. Incidentally the rejection of bail application as well as remand extension were also circulated. This has not in any manner prejudiced the detenu, nor it has taken away any valuable right which has accrued to the detenu. 22. On the facts, as already pointed out, what is relied upon has already been furnished to the detenu and in the absence of prejudice, the contention advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained. 23. That apart, the bail application was filed on behalf of the detenu and it is his own document and it is not as if the detenu was not aware of the contents of the bail application. 23. That apart, the bail application was filed on behalf of the detenu and it is his own document and it is not as if the detenu was not aware of the contents of the bail application. The bail application or the order is not a document of others or third parties, but it is that of the detenu himself which includes the order of rejection passed in the bail application, in which proceedings the detenu was represented by his counsel. As has been pointed out in Syed Farooq Mohammad v. Union of India,A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1597, non-supply of bail application is not a relevant material or document, nor it has caused any prejudice and therefore the contention advanced cannot be countenanced. 24. In the light of the above pronouncements and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above pronouncements, we are of the considered view that the contentions advanced on behalf of the detenu cannot be countenanced and they are rejected. Habeas corpus petition is dismissed.