IMPORTANT POINT
The representation of the detenu on receipt must be immediately taken up for consideration and dealt with continuously and the result thereof communicated to the detenu.

JUDGMENT

Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J. -The petitioner has challenged the validity of the detention order dated 5th of February) 1988 passed under section 3(1) read with section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. This was done with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling goods.

2. The petitioner was working as a stewardess in British Airways and on 2nd of November, 1987 she was scheduled to fly on board the British Airways flight BA 019 from New Delhi to Hongkong as a member of the Crew. She presented herself for clearance by the customs officials and on being questioned she made a declaration as to what she was carrying with her. However, on search of her baggage she was found carrying Indian currency totaling Rs. 7,59,000 Pounds Sterling 135, Hongkong Dollar 300, U.A.E. Dirhams 25, Bangladesh Taka 5 and Kuwaiti Dinar 1/4. She failed to produce any evidence or permission for carrying these currencies about which she did not make any declaration to the customs authorities. In this matter, a section 9(1) declaration was passed on 24th of March 1988.

3. The primary contention of Mr, Arora is that there is an unexplained delay in the consideration of her representation dated 28th of March, 1988 which she made to the Central Government and which was rejected on 22nd of April, 1988 and communicated to the detenu on 26th of April, 1988. The petitioner bas raised a speciflc plea in this regard in ground No.9 of her petition. In the counter affidavit submitted on behalf of the Union of India, and supposed to be based on the knowledge derived from the official records, it is stated that on 28th of March 1988 when this representation was received it was forwarded, to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence for comments which were received on I1tb of April 1988 and were forwarded by the Joint Secretery to the Minister of State for Revenue on 12th of April 1988 and the Minister of State for Revenue with his comments submitted the papers to the Hon'ble Finance Minister who considered the representation and rejected the same on 21st of April 1988. It is further stated that the 'file was received back on 22nd April 1988 and the memo thereof was issued.

4. Yesterday, when the matter was being heard, Mr. Sat Pal, learned counsel for the Union of India, sought time to collect the records of the case to show that there was no unexplained delay in the consideration of the 'representation. Today Mr. Sat Pal has stated that in fact the comments were finalised by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on 8th April 1988, but 9th and 10th being holidays it was received on 11th of April 1988. He has further submitted that from 10th April 1988 to 19th April 1988 the Hon'ble Finance Minister was on tour and on his return the representation of the detenu was considered at the earliest possible moment. He, therefore, sought the permission of the court to file an additional affidavit in this regard. I am afraid, it is not possible to set a precedent of the kind, though it may not be objectionable in certain selected cases to allow any party to file additional affidavit, when the case is being heard. In any case, I personally do not feel that there is any reason to disbelieve what Mr Sat Pal has stated. The Supreme Court in Harish Pahwa v. State of U.P. and others1, has clearly laid down the law on the subject and has empbasised that the representation of the detenu on receipt must be immediately taken up for consideration and dealt with continuously and the result thereof communicated to the detenu. This law has been laid down as far back as 1981 and it is always expected of the respondents to submit all the details examining the delay in the counter affidavit. Assuming that the Hon'ble Minister for Finance was on tour' from 10th to 19th of April 1988 the representation of the detenu was not taken up for consideration by him until 21st of April 1988 Assuming that there was need to seek comments