ORDER :

The petitioner is the wife of the Detenu, Sri.Akbar Siddik. She is interested in the life, welfare and personal liberty of the Detenu. That an order of detention dated 03.04.2019, at Annexure-A, was passed by Sri.Rajneesh Goel, Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Department, Karnataka Government Secretariat, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru, directing detention of the Detenu. It was noted in the order of detention that Sri.Rajneesh Goel, is specially empowered under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short ‘COFEPOSA Act’) and being satisfied that ‘with a view to prevent the Detenu Sri.Akbar Siddik, from the act of smuggling gold,’ has passed an order of Detention in terms of Section3(1)(i), (ii) and (iv) of the COFEPOSA Act, directing detention of the Detenu-Sri.Akbar Siddik. The grounds for detention were also furnished to the Detenu, along with seven box files of relied upon documents.

2. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that consequent to para–69 of the grounds for detention furnished to the Detenu, the Detenu was given a right to make representations against the detention to the Detaining Authority, the Government of Karnataka, the Central Government and the COFEPOSA Advisory Board.

3. Accordingly, on 24.04.2019, a representation was made to the Detaining Authority, through the Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Bengaluru. It was forwarded from the Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Bengaluru to the Government of Karnataka on 30.04.2019. On 03.05.2019, it was forwarded to the Sponsoring Agency by the Government. On 08.05.2019, the Sponsoring Agency has sent comments and reports. On 24.05.2019, an endorsement was issued considering the representation. In the interregnum, one more representation was made. Even though it was dated 24.04.2019, the same was sent only on 04.05.2019 to the State Government. The same was forwarded to the Sponsoring Agency on 13.05.2019. On 14.05.2019, the Sponsoring Agency sent comments and reports on the representation.

4. A reply has been furnished by Sri.Rajneesh Goel, the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government Home Department, vide an endorsement dated 24.05.2019. The second representation has not been considered at all. There is only one reply that has been received by the Detenu. Therefore, he pleads that when two representations have been made, both require to be considered by the concerned authorities. That there is a delay of one month in considering the first representation, which is fatal. That non-consideration of the second representation is also a ground to declare the further detention of the detenu as being illegal.

5. The same is disputed by Sri.Sandesh J. Chouta, learned Senior Advocate and Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents-State by placing reliance on the statement of objections. He pleads that there is no delay in considering the representations of the Detenu. He has narrated the various dates with regard to the manner in which the representations were considered by the State. That while in the process of considering the first representation dated 24.04.2019, the second representation was submitted on 04.05.2019. Therefore, the second representation was also sent to the concerned authorities to record their comments and to issue parawise remarks. Immediately on receipt of the same, the instant reply has been furnished. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any delay.

6. So far as the primary contention that two representations have been submitted and only one representation has been considered, the learned senior counsel submits that the endorsement is issued on the consideration of both the representations by the concerned authority. That Sri.Rajneesh Goel is not only the Detaining Authority, but also the Specially Empowered Authority of the State. Therefore, having received the parawise remarks and other comments from the co