Judgment

S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J.:- Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed by the detenu, Mahesh Kumar Chauhan alias Banti questioning the correctness of the judgment made in Criminal Writ Petition No. 657/ 89 by the High Court of Delhi dismissing the petition as devoid of any merit. The above writ petition out of which this present appeal has arisen was filed by the appellant, Mahesh Kumar Chauhan against the order of detention dated 13-7-1989 clamped upon him by the first respondent, Union of India in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 3(l) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to preventing the detenu from engaging in transporting and concealing smuggled goods and dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in keeping smuggled goods.

3. The entire facts of the case are well set out in the grounds of detention and, therefore, we think that it is not necessary to reiterate the same.

4. Mr. Harjinder Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant raised a variety of contentions, one of which being that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in considering and disposing of the representation of the detenu dated 18-8-1989 and as such the continued detention of the appellant is impermissible and unconstitutional as being violative of the mandatory provisions of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent before the High Court, the declarant namely, Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance while refuting the allegation of the appellant that, his representation has been dealt with in ,cavalier manner has stated that the petitioner has made his representation on 21-8-1989 and not on 18-8-1989 as alleged by the appellant and that it was received in the office of his Department on 23-8-1989 and the same was forwarded to the concerned sponsoring authority on 25-8-1989. The Sponsoring Authority sent his comments only on 11-9-1989. Thereafter, the representation along with the comments was processed and put up before the Minister of State for Revenue, who considered and rejected the same on 15-9-1989 subject to the approval of the Finance Minister. On 18-9-1989 the file was received back from the Finance Ministers office and the memorandum was issued on 19-9-1989 rejecting the representation. Mr. Harjinder Singh submitted that the offices of the detaining authority and the sponsoring authority are within the metropolis of Delhi and that there is absolutely no explanation for the delay occasioned on the part of the sponsoring authority in sending his Comments till 11-9-1989 though the representation was sent for comments to the said authority even on 25-8-1989 and that this considerable delay at the hands of the sponsoring authority stands unexplained vitiating the order of detention.

6. In support of the above contention, he placed much reliance on the decision of this Court in Rama Dhondu Borade v. V. K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police, (1989) 3 SCC 173, to which one of us (Ratnavel Pandian, J.) was a party. In the above cited decision, this Court after referring to the dictum laid down in Smt. Shalini Soni v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 544, and some other decisions of this Court dealing with the similar questions of delayed disposal of representation, has laid down the following proposition of law:

"The detenu has an independent constitutional right to make his representation under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Correspondingly, there is a constitutional mandate commanding the concerned authority to whom the detenu forwards his representation questioning the correctness of the detention order clamped upon him and requesting for his release, to consider the said representation within reasonable dispatch and to dispose the same as expeditiously as possible. This constitutional requirement must be satisfied with respect but if