ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J.
1. This petition challenges the detention order dated 17th July, 1998 passed by respondent No. 2, under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short ‘the Act’) against the petitioner.
2. It is, inter alia, alleged that on the basis of a specific intelligence, the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi, intercepted two tempos bearing Registration Nos. DL-1LB-0213 and DL-1LA-3728 just as the goods being carried in them were about to be off-loaded in front of godown-cum-residence of one Tej Veer Singh, located at Khasra No.16, Gali No. 3, R-Block, Vikas Nagar, New Delhi, on 1st May, 1998 at about 9.45 PM. Dheer Singh, co-detenu, was present on the spot at the time of interception of the two tempos which were loaded with goods packed in hessain cloth. Similar type of packages were lying next to the doorsteps of the said premises. One of the packages on being opened was found to contain ball bearings with marking that showed that they were to foreign origin. On being asked by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, said Dheer Singh stated that he had brought the said two tempos for off-loading the goods in his godown on instructions of the petitioner and that the goods which were lying on the ground outside the said premises were also got off-loaded by him from another tempo under similar instructions from the petitioner a little earlier in the day. On being further asked by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to show evidence to prove that the goods had been imported in the country legally said Dheer Singh stated that neither he nor any other person had any evidence either documentary or otherwise and the said goods had been smuggled into India from Nepal. It is further alleged that the aforesaid two tempos and the Mini Truck in which the goods lying outside the said premises were loaded were taken to the office of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence situated at Paryavaran Bhawan, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. On way to the office when the officers of the Directorate alongwith said Dheer Singh were on Nangloi-Najafgarh Road at Hanuman Mandir. Dheer Singh pointed out towards the petitioner who was standing against a Maruti 800 car, as the person on whose instructions he was handling the said goods. Petitioner is stated to have voluntarily made a confessional statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, inter alia, to the effect that said goods were handled by said Dheer Singh on his instructions. Petitioner was arrested and produced for the judicial remand before ACMM, New Delhi on 3rd May, 1998. Order of detention under challenge was passed against the petitioner on 17th July, 1998, which was served on him on 18th July, 1998. It is also stated that the petitioner sent representation to the respondent No. 2/detaining authority on 31st July, 1998. Another representation was sent on 3rd August, 1998. Representation was rejected by the detaining authority on 26th August, 1998 while by the Central Government on 1st September, 1998.
3. Contention advanced by Shri Ashutosh appearing for the petitioner was that there is unexplained delay in disposing of the petitioner’s representations dated 31st July, 1998 and 3rd August, 1998 by the detaining authority and also the Central Government. Dheer Singh, co-detenu who also filed similar petition for revoking the detention order, has been ordered to be released by order dated 13th January, 1998 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 905/98, by at Division Bench of this Court on the ground of unexplained delay in disposing of the representations made by him and in view of that order detention order in question also deserves to be quashed. In support of later limb of the argument reliance was placed on a decision in Om Prakash Mahendru Vs. Union of India & Ors. [1989(1) Crimes 479].
4. On the point of alleged delay in disposing of the aforesaid two representations, Para (C) and part of Para (F) of the parawise reply to the grounds of the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1&2 are material. They read as under:-
“The contents of Ground C are wrong and hence denied. It is respectfully submitted that all the representations sent by the Petitioner have been carefully and expeditiously considered by the Detaining Authority as well as the Central Government, as the case may be, and there has been no delay, leave alone any undue delay, in the consideration of the same.
It is submitted that representation of the detenu dated 31.7.98/signed on 3.8.98 (and treated as dated 3.8.98) was received in the COFEPOSA Unit on 5.8.98 through Supdt., Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. Immediately, on the same day, parawise comments were called for from the Sponsoring Authority. The representation was received by the Sponsoring Authority on 6.8.98 (8/9th August, 1998 and 15/16th August, 1998 were closed holidays being Saturdays & Sundays respectively). On 19.8.98 parawise comments on the said representation were sent by the Sponsoring Authority to the COFEPOSA Unit and received in the COFEPOSA Unit on 20.8.98 at 5 PM. The representation alongwith the parawise comments of the Sponsoring Authority were submitted to the Detaining Authority on 25.8.98. In between 22/23.8.98 were closed holidays being Saturdays & Sundays respectively. The representation was considered by the Detaining Authority on 26.8.98 and was rejected by him on the same date. This was communicated to the petitioner by a Memorandum dated 26.8.98, a true copy of which is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R-1.”
5. Omitting the immaterial portion said Para (F) reads thus:-
(F) “The Aforesaid Representation dated 3.8.98 (Annexure-H to the writ petition) was also considered by the Central Government independently and the same was rejected as being devoid of merit vide Memorandum dated 1.9.98. On 26.8.98, the Representation was put up before the Additional Director General of Central Economic Intelligence Bureau. On 27.8.98, the Representation was placed before the Special Secretary. On the very same day i.e. on 27.8.98, the said representation was carefully considered by the Secretary (Revenue) on behalf of the Central Govt. who rejected the same (29.8.98 and 30.8.98 were holidays being Saturday and Sunday respectively). By a Memorandum dated 1.9.98 the rejection of the said Representation by the Central Government and communicated to the petitioner.
6. From the said reply affidavit it is manifest that instead of two there was only one representation dated 30th July, 1998 (signed on 3rd August, 1998) made by the petitioner, which was received in COFEPOSA Unit on 5th August, 1998 and sent on the same day for furnishing parawise comments by the Sponsoring authority. This representation was received by the Sponsoring authority on 6th August, 1998 and parawise comments thereto were sent to COFEPOSA Unit on 19th August, 1998. Evidently, 14 days time was taken by the Sponsoring authority in sending the comments to COFEPOSA Unit. It may be noticed that the case set up in said reply affidavit by respondents 1 & 2 is that the delay in sending the comments was caused because of intervening holidays falling on 8.8.98, 9.8.98, 15.8.98 and 16.8.98. These holidays being Saturdays and Sundays were known holidays, intimated well in advance to the Sponsoring authority and it was expected that the concerned officers of the Sponsoring authority would act in the matter so as to avoid delay anticipating these holidays. That apart, it has not been explained in reply affidavit that what steps were taken in the matter by the Sponsoring authority, particularly, on 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th August, 1998, the days falling in between the said holidays. Obviously, because of the supine indifference or slackness on the part of concerned officers of the Sponsoring authority, parawise comments to the said representation were not for-warded to COFEPOSA Unit before 19th August, 1998. Late forwarding of para-wise comments by the Sponsoring authority in turn resulted in delayed disposal of representation by the detaining authority as also by the Central Government. Unexplained delay in disposing of the representation of the detenu has been held to vitiate the order of detention by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions (See: Rashid S.K. Vs. State of West Bengal, , Smt. Shalini Soni & Others Vs. Union of India & Others, , Mohinuddin Alias Moin Master Vs. District Magistrate, Beed and Others, , Rama Dhondu Borade Vs. Shri V.K. Saraf, Commr. of Police & Others, ; Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh Vs. Distt. Magistrate, Ahmedabad & Others, [JT 1996(2) SC 532]; Rajamal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, [1998 III AD (Cr.) SC 256] and Venmathi Selvam (Mrs.) Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, .
7. In Rajammal’s case (supra) the order of detention was quashed by the Apex Court on the ground of unexplained delay of 5 days in considering the representation by the Minister. In Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh’s case (supra) the Supreme Court had commented adversely upon the delay of 6 days in taking up the representation for consideration. Taking note of the ratio of the said decisions and the circumstances of the case the detention order in question is rendered bad and deserves to be quashed.
8. Furthermore, as held in Om Prakash Mahendru’s case (supra), setting aside of order of detention against Dheer Singh, co-detenu, also furnishes in additional ground to the petitioner to seek quashing of order of detention.
9. For the aforesaid discussion, the petition is allowed and the order of detention dated 17th July, 1998 is quashed. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith in case he is not required to be detained in any other case.