( 1 ) ORDER :- Smt. Madhu. Khanna has filed the special leave petition against the judgment of the Delhi High Court dismissing her application under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for quashing the detention of her husband by the order dated 11/12/1985 under S. 3 (1) read with S. 2 (f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act, and also for the quashing of the declaration dated 14/02/1986 made under S. 3 (1) of the COFEPOSA Act. She has also filed a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of both the aforesaid orders. A rule nisi has been issued on the writ petition.

( 2 ) AS prayed for, the special leave is granted. However, as elaborate arguments have been made by the learned Counsel of the parties, we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. Needless to say, the disposal of the appeal will mean disposal of the rule nisi.

( 3 ) THE detenu, Viswa Nath Khanna, was a clearing agent. It is not disputed that he used to arrange for the import of foreign goods for the, staff of the Afghan Embassy in India. It appears from the grounds of detention that on 18/05/1985 two air conditioners had arrived from Hongkong in the name of one Ashok Kumar of Afghan Embassy. On suspicion, the consignment was opened and it was found that the rear panel of one of the air conditioners had within it a metallic box which was not a part of the air conditioner, and that the box contained 195 gold biscuits (10 tolas each ). The said. air conditioners were imported by the detenu for the said. Ashok Kumar and were taken to the residence of the detenu from the airport. It was in the back-ground of the above facts that the detention order was made.

( 4 ) THE first point that has been urged by Mr. Jethmalani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, is that the declaration is bad because of the failure of the declaring authority to consider the representation of the detenu dated 11/02/1986 addressed to the President of India. The respondents produced before the learned Judge of the High Court at the hearing of the writ petition the original files relating to the detention of the detenu. The learned Judge looked into the files and it was found by him that the representation dated 11/02/1986 reached the declaring authority on 13/02/1986. It was dealt with and rejected by the respondent No. 2, Mr. M. L Wadhawan, Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, on 14/02/1986. The order under S. 9 (1) of the COFEPOSA Act was also made by him on that very day, that is, on 14/02/1986. The representation and the order rejecting it are contained in one file and the order under, S. 9 (1) of the Act is contained in another file. We have also looked into the files produced before us by the learned Additional Solicitor General. The files were also looked into by Mr. Jethmalani.

( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that the representation of the detenu dated 11/02/1986 was considered and rejected. It is, however, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that before making a declaration under S. 9 (1), the declaring authority did not consider the representation. Our attention has been drawn by the learned Counsel to the fact that the declaration does not contain any reference to the representation. It is, accordingly, submitted by, the learned Counsel that non-reference to the representation in the declaration shows that, the representation was not considered by, the declaring authority before he made the declaration. It has been already noticed that the representation was rejected and the declaration was made on the same day. In our opinion, there is no valid ground for thinking that after the declaration under S. 9 (1) was made, the respondent No. 2 rejected the representation. In the order directing that it is a fit case for making a declaration under S. 9 (1) of the COFEPOSA Act, the respondent No. 2