Bihar , (1966) 1 SCR 709, Tsering Dolkar v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi , (1987) 2 SCC 69, Hem Lall Bhandari v. State of Sikkim , (1987) 2 SCC 9 & State of Punjab v. Sukhpal Singh , (1990) 1 SCC 35 in support of this contention. He submits that in the light of the definition of ‘appropriate Government’ in Section 2 (a) of the COFEPOSA Act, the constitution of the Advisory Board under Section 8 (a) of the said Act must also be by the ‘appropriate Government’. He refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Canon India Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs in Civil Appeal No.1827/2018 and Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Coffee Board Bangalore ; (1980) 3 SCC 358 to essentially contend that the word ‘the’ just before the words ‘Advisory Board’ in Section 8(b) of the COFEPOSA Act is of significance as the requirement of the law is a reference to the Advisory Board, constituted by the ‘appropriate Government’, as defined in Section 2(a) of the said Act. In other words, his contention is that a combined reading of Article 22 (4) of the Constitution and Sections 2 (a), 8 (a) and 8 (b) of the COFEPOSA Act together with the notification dated 17th March 2020 leads to the irresistible conclusion that only the Advisory Board constituted under the notification dated 17th March 2020 would have the authority to consider the case of the detenu.
