ORDER
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. This writ petition challenges the detention of the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The incident involved the recovery of Foreign and Indian Currency equivalent to Indian Rs. 7,97,615/ (Rupees seven lacs ninety seven thousand six hundred and fifteen only) from the search of the suit case of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds in support of the writ petition but has confined herself to the ground of delay in dealing with the representation of the petitioner.
3. During the course of hearing the Union of India was given an opportunity to file an additional affidavit to explain in detail the reasons for delay in disposing of the representation of the petitioner. Accordingly the respondents filed the additional affidavit on 30th November, 1998 in which in paragraph 4 the following explanation for the delay, that we are concerned with, has been furnished: “that detenu’s representation dated 24th August, 1998 addressed to the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Reve nue was forwarded by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi vide his letter dated 25th August, 1998 and received in CONFEPOSA UNIT on the same date. The said representation was sent to the sponsoring authority on 26th August, 1998 with a request to furnish comments thereon. When the comments were not received from the sponsoring authority a reminder was sent on 9th Septem ber, 1998. On receipt of the reminder dated 9th September, 1998 the sponsoring authority contacted the COFEPOSA UNIT telephonically on 15th September, 1998 and informed that Ministry’s origi nal letter dated 26th August 1998 was not received by them. Accordingly a copy of Ministry’s letter dated 26th August, 1998 and detenu’s representation dated 24th August 1998 were faxed to the detaining authority on 15th September 1998. The sponsoring authority furnished comments vide letter dated 16th September 1998 which was received in COFEPOSA Unit on 17th September, 1998. The case file alongwith comments of the sponsoring authority was submitted to the Under Secretary concerned on 17th September, 1998. The Under Secretary examined and processed the representa tion and submitted the case file to Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) on 17th September, 1998. JS (COFEPOSA) submitted the case file to Secretary (Revenue) on 17th September, 1998. The Secretary (Revenue) considered and rejected the representation on 18th September, 1998 and the detenu was informed about the rejection of his representation dated 24th August 1998 vide Memo dated 18th September 1998 itself. In between 29/30th August, 1998, 5/6th September, 1998 and 12/13th September, 1998 were closed holidays being Saturdays and Sundays respectively. As such it is respect fully submitted that there has been no delay leave alone unrea sonable delay in the consideration of the said representation.”
4. Apart from the explanation due to the holidays occasioning the delay it is clear that for the period starting from 26th August, 1998 and ending on 15th September, 1998 there is no valid explanation for the delay in disposing of the representation of the petitioner. Insofar as the delay said to be occasioned by the holidays is concerned, it is not tenable as these were not sudden or unexpected holidays but are holidays which are announced at the beginning of the year and the concerned authority is required to take into account these situations so as to act in advance of and in anticipation of such holidays to avoid delay, particularly so, in cases involving the liberty of a detenu under preventive detention.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment of this Court in Jitender Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and Others reported as 1998 (1) JCC (Delhi 205. The extracts of the relevant portion dealing with the delay are reproduced herein below : “The question with regard to the disposal of a representation came up before different High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, time and again, and it is a subject matter of different decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and different High Courts. Before proceedings any further in the matter I would like to illustrate my view with the help of certain authorities. It was observed in Rama Dhondu Borade Vs. V.K. Saraf, Commission er of Police and Others “…..” True, there is no prescribed period either under the provisions of the Constitu tion or under the concerned detention law within which the repre sentation should be dealt with. The use of the word “as soon as may be” occurring in Article 22(5) of the Constitution reflects that the representation should be expeditiously considered and disposed of with due promptitude and diligence and with a sense of urgency and without avoidable delay. What is reasonable dis patch depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in that regard. However, in case the gap between the receipt of the representation and its consideration by the authority is so unreasonably long and expla nation offered by the authority is so unsatisfactory, such delay could vitiate the order of detention.”
6. It is pertinent to note that Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kundan bhai Dula bhai Shaikh Vs. Distt. Magistrate, Ahmedabad & Ors. Rameshchandra Somchand Shah Vs. Distt. Magistrate, Surat & Ors. reported as JT 1996 (2) SC 532, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had commented adversely even upon the delay of 6 days in taking up the representation of a detenu for consideration.
7. In view of the foregoing discussions and circumstances mentioned above, the petitioner is entitled to succeed on the short ground of unexplained delay in dealing with the petitioner’s representation. The petition is allowed. The detention order dated 27th May, 1998 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner be set at liberty forthwith in case he is not required to be detained in any other case and under any other order.