1987 (4) TMI 162

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellant in the appeal are the same. Hence they are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. The appeal is against the order, dated 8-8-1986, passed by the High Court of Madras dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of detention passed against him under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sion has caused prejudice to him in making a proper representation. (2) The detaining authority did not dispatch all the materials before it to the Advisory Board for the Advisory Board to come to an independent conclusion on the grounds of detention and the need for the detention. 4. The learned Judges who know Tamil well have considered the submissions made on the difference in the two ver .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd dismiss the appeal. 6. The only other point argued before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that all the materials available with the detaining authorities were not dispatched to the Advisory Board nor to the Central Government. After perusing the counter affidavit filed by the respondent we find that necessary materials had been dispatched. The petitioner cannot succeed on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X