JUDGMENT
Sat Pal, J.
(1) The petitioner in this case was detained in terms of order dated 21st July, 1992 passed by the Joint Secretary, Govt. of India, Min. of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short COFEPOSA). The aforesaid order of detention was served on the petitioner on 28th July, 1992 when he was in Jail.
(2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 5th May, 1992 certain officers of the Enforcement Directorate conducted search at the premises of one Mr. Praveen Jain who happens to be brother of the petitioner at B-14A, 1st Floor, Vijay Nagar, Mew Delhi. It is further alleged that on the basis of said search, foreign currency worth Rs.35,00,000.00 and gold valued at Rs.l0,50,000.00 were seized by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate. According to the allegations the petitioner was arrested at the spot on 5th/6th May, 1992, the petitioner was produced before the Court of Addl. Chief M.M.on 6th May, 1992 and was remanded to judicial custody on the remand application made by the enforcement officers. The statement of petitioner is alleged to have been recorded first on 5th May, 1992 and again in Jail on 20th May, 1992. The petitioner, however, was granted bail under Section 166(2) of Cr. P.C. on the ground that the complaint was not filed within the statutory period. Since the petitioner could not furnish the requisite surety bond, he was not released. It was while in Jail, as stated hereinabove, the order of detention was served on the petitioner on 28th July, 1992.
(3) Mr. Harjinder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged various contentions in the writ petition but he has confined his arguments only on two contentions. His first contention is that the petitioner was not supplied legible copies of the documents mentioned in para 15 of the writ petition and inspite of the fact that he had submitted a representation dated 12th August. 1992 (though according to the respondent the representation is dated 10th August, 1992) which was duly received by respondent No.1. He, therefore, submitted that in the. absence of the legible copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority, the petitioner could not make a proper representation to the detaining authority and as such the order of detention is liable to be qushed. In this connection the learned counsel referred to para 15,16 and grounds Viii of the Writ Petition. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on Bhupinder Singh Vs Uoi, Subas Das Vs Uoi, 1988(2), Delhi Lawyers, 159 and Bhagat Raj Vs Uoi.
(4) The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 12th August, 1992 (though according to the respondent the representation is dated 10th August. 1992) to the detaining authority and there is unexplained delay of 29 days in the disposal of the representation. Thus there is violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In this connection, the learned counsel has referred to grounds Xiii and Xiv of the writ petition. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mahesh Kumar Chauhan Vs Uoi, .
(5) In this case counter-affidavit on behalf of the Uoi has been filed. In reply to para 15 of the writ petition, it has been stated that most of the pages mentioned in the said para were hand written. The photo copies of these documents were taken from the best available photo copier machine, It has further been stated that while disposing of the representation dated 10th August, 1.992. the detaining authority had directed the sponsoring authority to supply the legible copies of the documents which are alleged to be illegible. I have seen some of the documents alleged to be illegible which were supplied to the petitioner and I find that some of the documents at page 123, 124 and 125 infact are not legible. As stated hereinabove, the detaining authority has itself directed to sponsoring authority to supply the legible copies of these documents. But the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that legible copies of those documents have not been supplied to the petitioner so far. The leaned counsel for the respondent has referred to some note from a departmental file wherein it has been stated that the legible copies of the documents in question were supplied to the detenu on 25th September, 1992. Firstly, no acknowledgment for the receipt of the legible copies of the documents in question has been shown to me. Secondly, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the legible copies were supplied on 25th September, 1992, there is no explanation for the delay in supplying of these copies from 10th September, 1992 to 24th September, 1992. On account of non-supply of the legible copies of the documents the detenu was clearly denied the opportunity of making a representation and as such fare was a clear violation of the right guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
(6) As regards the second contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been stated in the counter-affidavit in reply to ground Xiii and Xiv that the representation dated 10th August, 1992 was received in the Cofeposa Unit on 12th August, 1992 and was placed before the detaining authority who directed for obtaining the comments of the sponsoring authority on the same date and the sponsoring authority submitted its comments vide letterdated7nd September, 1992 which was received in the Ministry on 2nd September, 1992. No satisfactory explanation has been given in the counter-affidavit for the delay in the submission of the comments by the sponsoring authority. Learned counsel for the respondents during the course of the arguments has, however, submitted that during the period 12th August, 1992 and 7th September, 1992 there were 9 holidays. Be that as it may, there is still no explanation for the delay for the remaining period of 16 days particularly when the offices of both the sponsoring authority and the detaining authority are situated in the Union Territory of Delhi.
(7) It has been clearly held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Mahesh Kumar Chauhan (Supra) that are presentation of a detenu should be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible, otherwise the continued detention will render itself impermissible and invalid as being violative of the constitutional obligation enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution and if any delay is occurred in the disposal of a representation, such delay should be explained by the appropriate authority to the satisfaction of the Court. Since the respondents have failed to explain the delay satisfactorily, I am of the view that the order of detention is liable to be quashed on this ground also.
(8) In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the order of detention dated 21st July, 1992 which is at page37 of the paper book is here by quashed. The petitioner will be set at liberty forthwith unless he is not required to be detained in connection with any other case.