JUDGEMENT

B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by way of special leave petition is directed against the judgment-dated 4.5.2005 of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1362 of 2002. The appellants are the Union of India and the detaining authority. The Joint Secretary, Government of India issued the order of detention under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act) on 14.6.2002. The said order of detention was served upon the sole respondent on 5.9.2002. The grounds of detention were set out in the backdrop of the detailed factual matrix which wer~ made available to the detaining authority about various alleged omissions, misdeclaration and concealment etc. which according to the detaining authority amounted to smuggling of goods within the meaning of the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act. We are not required to notice the details of the grounds of detention for the purposes of disposal of this appeal.

3. The respondent through his brother filed the writ petition in Delhi High Court on 21.11.2002 assailing the legality of the order of detention on various grounds. The only ground on which the writ petition was pressed and disposed of relates to non-consideration of the representation dated 01.10.2002 submitted to the Central Government by the detenu. It was contended that non-consideration of the said representation vitiated the order of detention being violative of the protection granted under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, allowed the writ petition holding that there has been a failure on the part of the Central Government in considering the representation of the detenu. The order of the High Court, however, is not clear and it may be useful to notice the operative portion there of which reads as under:

“In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that there has been a failure on the part of respondents to consider within a reasonable time the representation of the petitioner sent vide dated 27.9.2002, by the Central Government as required in terms of Section 11 of the COFEPOSA thereby vitiating the detention order dated 14.6.2002 which had been rendered otiose. Held accordingly. As the period of detention is already over and the petitioner is not under detention no direction for release of the petitioner are required to be given.”

4. We may at the outset state that in view of the fact the period of detention came to end by afflux of time and the detenu had already been released on 4.9.2003 the High Court could have simply disposed of the writ petition without going into the legality of the order of detention. The respondent appears to have pressed the writ petition in order to avoid further proceedings under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the SAFEMA”). Be it noted Section 2 of the SAFEMA provides that the provisions of the Act shall apply inter alia to every person in respect of whom an order of detention has been made under the COFEPOSA Act provided that such order of detention has not been set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction.

5. Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants submitted that the High Court committed gross error in quashing the detention order dated 14.6.2002 with its laconic observation "stands vitiated". By virtue of the impugned judgment and order of the High Court the appellants are prevented to proceed further in the matter under the SAFEMA. Learned Additional Solicitor General further contended that assuming without admitting even if the representation of the respondent was not considered and disposed of within a reasonable time, only the continued detention of the detenu may be vitiated and the original detention order cannot be declared void abinitio.

6. Dr. Abhishek M. Singhvi, learned se