JUDGMENT
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.
(1) In this Writ Petition the petitioner is challenging an order of detention under the Cofeposa dated 10.11.1993. The ‘petitioner sent a representation dated 03.12.1993 and the same was rejected on 04.01.1994 by the Central Government. It is contended that there is delay in disposal of representation by 30 days in all at various stages. It is contended that a second representation dated 20.01.94 was made and it took 39 days to be considered and rejected. A contention is raised that the representation dated 03.12.93 is disposed of beyond Ii weeks. It is also argued that the confessional statement is placed before the Central Government, but not the retraction.
(2) In our view, none of these contention has any force. Firstly, the representation dated 03.12.93 was received in the Cofeposa Unit on 06.12.93 and on the same day, para wise remarks were called for from the sponsoring authority. The said comments were received from the sponsoring authority on 17.12.93 Eighteenth and nineteenth were holidays and the representation was rejected on 4th January, 1994. Learned counsel wanted to place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Icchu Devi Vs. Union of India to say that the delay in disposal of the representation has vitiated the detention. It must be noted that the total time for disposal of the representation at various stages cannot be a basis for alleging unreasonable delay. The necessary steps in the consideration of the representation such as calling for remarks from the sponsoring authority and then receiving them are part of the process. On the facts of the case, we are unable to hold that the delay is unreasonable.
(3) So far as the second contention is concerned, it is admitted that the second representation dated 20.01.94 did not contain anything new from the earlier one. We are unable to hold that any prejudice was caused. In fact, a second repre- sentation without new facts has no bearing on the validity of the detention. The allegation regarding delay beyond 11 weeks is not factually correct. The 11 weeks time under Section 8 is for the Advisory Board to submit its report and we find that the detention order is of 10.11.93, the delay has to be counted from that date. In November, it is 20 days, in December, it is 31 days, and the record shows that the Board sent its report on 25.01.94 and not on 02.02.94 as alleged by the petitioner. We have actually looked into these dated from the report. Therefore, the tune taken is 75 days and is well within the Ii weeks period mentioned is Section 8.
(4) It is argued that though the statement under Section 108 was placed before the detaining authority, the retraction made before the Magistrate’s Court was not placed before the detaining authority. In our view, this contention cannot, in law, be accepted. In Prakash Chandra Mehta Vs. Commissioner and Secretary Government of Kerala and others , it was argued that the retractions were not placed before the detaining authority. Sabyasachi Mukherji, J (as he then was) held (para 74) that in such a case the Court could always consider whether the corresponding statement under Section 108 was omitted, whether there was other material. The confession was treated as a ground. This principle was followed in Madan Lal Anand Vs. Union of India and Others . In Prakash Chandra Mehta’s case (supra) it was argued that the court cannot say what effect the retraction would have on the detaining authority but this contention was rejected on the ground that this contention deals with sufficiency of grounds. If apart from Section 108 statement was a ground according to the Supreme Court. Hence, we reject this contention.
(5) It was then argued that in the counter it was wrongly stated that no represention- dated 03.12.93 was given to the Advisory Board. In our view, there is no wrong statement ‘ in the counter. It only emphasised that it was a representation to the Government and not to the Board. We also verified from the Advisory Board record that the said representation was considered by the Advisory Board.
(6) In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed.