( 1 ) THE petitioner, Sanjay Rajinder Sharma @ Sunil Chhibber has assailed the detention order dated 30th August, 1999 which was served on him on 21st September, 1999. It was confirmed by the Central Government on 25th November, 1999 under Section 9 (f) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the PITNDPS Act) for one year. The said order has been assailed on many grounds but during arguments counsel for the petitioner restricted the challenge primarily on two grounds, namely, (1) that the impugned detention order amounted to double detention; and (2) that there is an Unexplained delay in disposal of his representation which is violative of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the above challenge we may have a quick glance to the facts of this case. Petitioner was arrested on 24th February, 1999 under Section 21 of the NDPS Act on the ground that he was carrying heroin 2. 3 Kg. in his Knee pad on his person. The said recovery was made from his possession. Accordingly complaint was filed against him. That case is still pending trial. While the petitioner was in custody in the said case, the impugned detention order dated 30th August, 1999 under Section 3 (1) of PITNDPS Act was passed against him and served on 21st September, 1999. The detention order was confirmed by the Advisory Board as well as by the Central Government on 25th November, 1999. The petitioner made a representation against the impugned detention order. His representation was received by the Central Government on 4th October, 1999. The same was rejected and communication of the same was communicated to him on 27th October, 1999. Representation to the Detain- ing Authority was rejected and communicated to him on 29th October, 1999. Thus there was an unexplained delay in disposal of his representation by the Central Government as well as by the Detaining Authority.

( 3 ) THE question for consideration is whether serving of impugned detention order on the petitioner in jail amounted to double detention ? Mr. Jitender Sethi, counsel for the petitioner contended that on material has been placed on record to show that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail or he had applied for it or was going to apply shortly for bail or that he was going to be released on bail. Neither any such material shown to this Court nor it is the case of the respondent that such material was put up before the Detaining Authority. Since the petitioner was in judicial custody the Detaining Authority could not have been apprehensive that the petitioner would be - engaging in any prejudicial activity which required passing of the impugned detention order. The impugned order thus could not have validly been passed. The order of detention could only be passed if there were compelling reasons justifying such detenrtion despite the fact that the petitioner was already under detention. For that the respondent has not placed on record the convincing or any material justifying the said conclusion. What was the material considered by the Detaining Authority, has not been pleaded nor disclosed even prima facie basis of arriving at the conclusion that detention of the petitioner even though in custody, was necessary because there was every likelihood of his getting bail or that he would be engaging in any prejudicial ac- tivity. Mrjitender Sethi in order to support his contention drew our attention to the detention order dated 30th August, 1999. Relevant extract for our purpose are which are reproduced as under:-

"30. From the facts mentioned herein above and the material placed before me, I have no hesitation in holding that Shri Sanjay Rajendra Sharma @ Sunil Chibber has, knowingly engaged himself in the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs as is evident from his statement and material on record, and if not prevented, he is likely to continue indulging in illicit traffic in narcoti