JUDGMENT

MAJMUDAR, J. :- Special leave granted

2. By an earlier order of this Court notice was issued in this matter for final disposal and accordingly we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties finally. The appellant is wife of one M.Balakrishnan who has been detained pursuant to an order passed by Joint Secretary of Tamil Nadu in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1) (i) and 3(1) (iii) of COFEPOSA Act. The order of his detention is dated 17th February, 1993. The said order of detention was challenged by the appellant before the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Habeas Corpus Petn. No. 785 of 1994. That petition came to be dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 18-8-1994. The present appeal is filed by special leave against the said order.

3. The detenu was supplied grounds of detention of even date when he was detained pursuant to the impugned detention order. The appellant had raised various contentions challenging the order of detention. The grounds raised by her in support of the petition did not find favour with the High Court and the writ petition was dismissed. In appeal amongst others one contention was placed in the fore-front in support of the appeal. The said ground was that constitutional right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution got infracted inasmuch as representation was made against the detention order on 4-5-1994 through the jail authorities and that was not forwarded to the Central Government till 22nd July, 1994. Consequently, the continued detention of the detenu has become illegal. In support of that contention reliance was placed before the High Court on the decision of this Court in the case of Jaiprakash v. District Magistrate, Bulandshehar, U. P., 1993 Suppl(1) SCC 392 :(1992 AIR SCW 3360 ). The High Court distinguished the said decision and held that the facts of the present case are different inasmuch as the detenu is an advocate and must be deemed to be aware of the need for clear-cut representation while in this case the representation was vague. The delay in sending the said representation to the Central Government had no fatal consequences on the continued detention of the detenu.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the reasoning adopted by the High Court is not sustainable. The learned Counsel for the respondents-State of Tamil Nadu as well as the Union of India on the other hand submitted that on the facts of the present case it cannot be said that the constitutional right of detenu under Article 22(5) was violated in any manner.

5. In order to resolve this controversy it is necessary to note a few relevant facts. As stated earlier the detenu was taken into custody and was placed under preventive detention pursuant to the order dated 17th February, 1993. In the grounds of detention furnished to him it was clearly mentioned in paragraph 6 that the detenu had a right to make a representation to the State Government and also to the Government of India if he so desired in writing against the order under which he was kept under detention. It was further stated that if the detenu wished to make such a representation he should address it to the Joint Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9 or the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, COFEPOSA Section, New Delhi, as the case may be, and forward it through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madras in which detenu was confined, as expeditiously as possible. Any representation that is made by the detenu will be duly considered by the State or Central Government, as the case may be. The present appellant sent the representation along with a covering letter dated 4th May, 1994 addressed to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madras. She stated in the said letter enclosing the representation with nine copies as under :-

"My husband M.Balakrishnan s/o Murugappan is detained in