ORDER

1. The petitioner (wife of the detenu, Santosh Pandurang Patil) herein inter alia prays for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for quashing an order of detention dated 21-7-2005 passed against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ("the COFEPOSA Act").

2. For alleged commission of an offence on the part of the detenu under Section 135 of the Customs Act on an allegation that common salt having been exported by misdec1aring it as high value 'G' salt a criminal proceeding was initiated against him. The said incident is said to have taken place on 10-2-2005.

3. The detenu was arrested on 9-3-2005. He was released on bail on 7-4-2005. Indisputably, the detenu made two pre-detention representations, one on 23-5-2005 and another on 27-6-2005 where after the impugned order of detention was prepared.

4. It is not in dispute that the order of detention was passed by the empowering authority being Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Government of Maharashtra, Home Department. The detenu was arrested in Delhi on 16-2-2006 and he was, thereafter, taken to .Mumbai and order of detention was served upon him on 17-2-2006.

5. The petitioner (wife of the detenu) herein filed a writ petition before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and by an order dated 24-3-2006, this Court dismissed the writ petition directing:

"Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that a fresh representation may be filed on behalf of the detenu before the appropriate authority, which may be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In the event the said representation is rejected, it will be open for the petitioner to move this Court again.

We hope and trust that in the meantime, the Advisory Board shall also take up the matter and dispose of the same."

6. Pursuant to and in furtherance thereof, two representations were made by him on 10-4-2006, one before the detaining authority and another before the State Government which were received by the said authorities on 12-4-2006. A communication rejecting the representation by the State' was received by the detenu on 3-5-2006.

7. Before adverting to the contentions raised by Mr KK Mani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, we may notice that this Court on 26-9-2006, while hearing the writ petition observed from the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that no statement had been made therein to the effect that the detaining authority had also disposed of the representation made by the detenu although the State of Maharashtra did so by an order dated 2-5-2006.

8. Two affidavits were filed on 26-9-2006, one affirmed by Sharad Balkrishna Pawaskar, Under-Secretary, Home Department (Special), Government of Maharashtra and another by Chandra Iyengar, Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Home Department, Government of Maharashtra. The detaining authority, however, in its affidavit did not make any statement as regards rejection of the representation by the detenu.

Thereafter, two affidavits have been affirmed on 7-10-2006, one by Chandra Iyengar, Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Home Department, Government of Maharashtra and another by Neela Satyanarayana, Principal Secretary (Forests), Revenue and Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra.

9. The principal contention raised by Mr Mani, learned counsel now before us is that there has been a gross unexplained delay in disposing of the representations.

10. In the affidavit affirmed by Sharad Balkrishna Pawaskar, Under-Secretary, Home Department (Special), Government of Maharashtra on 7-10-2006 it is stated that the representation of the detenu was received by the Home Department on 13-4-2006 and from 13-4-2006 to 2-5-2006, the file concerned was with the detaining authority. The detention order was considered and rejected b