JUDGMENT

KAILASAM, J.:— The petitioner Ramchandra A. Kamat has preferred this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of writ of Habeas Corpus directing his release by quashing the order of his detention dated 31-8-1979 passed by second respondent, Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance.

2. The petitioner was detained by an order dated 31st August, 1979 under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. In pursuance of the order, the petitioner was arrested on 5-9-1979. He was served with the grounds of detention on the same day. The petitioner through his advocate by a letter dated 7-9-1979 wrote to the second respondent stating that it was found that the detaining authority relied upon a number of statements of various persons including the detenu as well as documents referred to in the grounds, but the detenu was not furnished with the copies of the same. The Advocate stated that the detenu desires to make a representation against the order of detention but found that without the copies of documents referred to in grounds of detention order it is not possible to make an effective representation. A reply to his letter was sent to the Advocate by Mr. Thawani, Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, wherein he acknowledged the receipt of the letter of the Advocate dated 7-9-1979. By this letter the Deputy Secretary requested the Advocate to contact the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bombay, who it was stated, had been suitably advised regarding supply of copies of statements and documents, relied upon in the detention order dated 31-8-1979. It may be noted that the detaining authority, the second respondent did not acknowledge the letter from the detenus advocate or take any action by himself but directed the Deputy Secretary to address the communication dated 10-9-1979 referred to above. Though the letter states that the Deputy Director, Bombay has been suitably advised regarding the request for supply of copies of statements and documents relied on in the detention order nothing further was done by the Deputy Director of Enforcement, Bombay. On the 14th September, 1979, the advocate not having received any communication, addressed a letter to the Deputy Director enclosing a copy of the letter which he received from the Deputy Secretary and requested the Deputy Director to supply him on behalf of his client copies of the relevant statements and documents referred to and relied upon in the order of detention at an early date. In reply to the letter of 14-9-79 by the Advocate, the Deputy Director in his communication dated 22-9-1979 requested the advocate to see the Deputy Director on 24-9-79 at 14.30 hours to take inspection of the documents. On inspecting the documents the advocate was not satisfied and insisted on supply of copies of documents and ultimately copies were supplied on 3 days, namely, on 26-9-79, 28-9-79 and 29-9-79. The representation was made by the detenu on 5-10-1979.

3. It is settled law that the appropriate authority is bound to give an opportunity to the detenu to make representation and to consider the representation of the detenu as early as possible. There should not be any delay in the matter of consideration.

4. The constitutional Bench of the Court in Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal, (1970) 3 SCR 225 has held that the fundamental right of the detenu to have representation considered by the appropriate Government will render meaningless if the Government will not deal with the matter expeditiously. The Court observed :-

"It is established beyond any measure of doubt that the appropriate authority is bound to consider the representation of the detenu as early as possible. The appropriate Government itself is bound to consider the representation as expeditiously as possible. The reason for immediate consideration of the representation is too obvious to be s