(1) THIS Writ Petition is filed by a detenu challenging the order of detention passed against him on 2/8/99 under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA). The detention actually commenced on 4/8/99 and it is for a period of one year. We are told that presently the detenu is on parole and the parole is being extended by orders of this Court.

(2) THE detention order was passed in the following background. The petitioner arrived at Anna International Airport on 25/4/99 in the company of one Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran. The Petitioner was an Assistant Public Relation Officer attached to the Department of Tourism under the Government of Tamil Nadu. On suspicion, the petitioner and his co-traveller - Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran were intercepted and on search 102 mobile phones were detected from the baggage of the petitioner alone and from the baggage of his co-traveller 92 mobile phones were detected. Both of them were arrested on the next day and their statements were separately recorded. Petitioner was released on bail on 28/6/99.

(3) THE preventive detention order was passed against Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran. We may mention now that the said order was challenged in this Court but we did not interfere with the said order as per the judgment of this Court dated 2/3/2000.

(4) MAINLY three points have been raised by the petitioner in challenge of the detention order passed against him. They are: 1. The sponsoring authority (the Customs Department) did not place relevant and vital documents for consideration before the detaining authority. 2. There was delay in considering and disposing of the representation made by the petitioner before the Central Government. 3. There was no compelling necessity to preventively detain the petitioner.

(5) FOR elaborating the first ground learned counsel contended that records connected with the detention of the co-traveller - Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran were not placed before the detaining authority. Had those records been placed, perhaps, the detaining authority would have come to a different conclusion, contended learned counsel.

(6) WE cannot appreciate the said contention for two reasons. First is that the detention order in respect of the present petitioner should be based principally on the facts centred on what he had done in collaboration with his co-traveller. In other words, if the detention order and the connected records relating to the co-traveller were to be placed before the detaining authority there could possibly be an apprehension that the detaining authority would be biased against the petitioner because of the various allegations contained therein. Second is that the detaining authority cannot be said to be totally ignorant of the fact that Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran was also detained under a separate order, for, the aforesaid detention order against Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran was passed by the same detaining authority just six days prior to the impugned detention order. So we do not see much force in the said grou.nd raised now.

(7) WHILE dealing with the second ground we initially thought that the petitioner has really a case to put forward because at the first blush it may appear that there was delay on the part of the Central Government in disposing of the representation made by the detenu. We may point out that representation to the Central Government was actually made by the detenu on 1/9/99 and the same was disposed of by the Central Government only on 15/9/99. No doubt there is delay. It is not the law that whenever there is any delay the detention order would be vitiated. The law is that the delay should not be unexplainable and that the explanation offered must appear to the court to be reasonable and acceptable.

(8) IN the present case the representation sent by the detenu to the Central Government on 1/9/99 has reached the COFEPOSA Unit of the