( 1 ). The appeal is against an order dismissing the writ petition of the appellant (referred as the petitioner hereinafter) seeking his release from detention.

( 2 ). The petitioner was detained by virtue of an order dated 23/4/1993 made under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinaftercalled the Act ). It was alleged against the petitioner that on 8/1/1993 he was carrying two pieces of pure gold weighing in all 2913. 500 gms. valuedatrs. 11,53,746. 00. Petitioner had arrived at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi from Dubai by a flight. He was detained on the date of the impugned order. According to him he sent two representations on 28/4/1993, one addressed to the Detaining Authority (the Govt. of the Nationalcapital Territory of Delhi), and another to the 1st respondent. He had also sent another representation on 13/5/1993. On 19/5/1993, the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the detention order and it was admitted on 21/5/1993.

( 3 ). Petitioner urged several contentions, all of which were rejected by the learned Single Judge. As we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released from detention, in view of the unexplained delay in considering his representation, it is unnecessary to refer to the other contentions.

( 4 ). As to the delay, the following facts are to be noted: (1) In the writ petition, the petitioner stated thus:-

"that the petitioner/detenu says and submits that he sent a representation dated 28/4/1993 (Annexure d ) to detaining authority through Jail Supdt. , whereby besides asking for the order of detention and grounds of detention in Gurmukhi/hindi, a language known to the petitioner, a prayer was also made for revocation of the impugned detention order. However, till the filing of the writ petition, he has not received any reply whatsoever from detaining authority. It is submitted that it is enjoined upon the respondents to show to this Hon ble Court that the said representation of the, petitioner was dealt with continuously till its final disposal and communication thereof to the detenu and on their failure to do so the respondents would render the impugned detention order illegal and void. "

( 5 ). The 1st respondent did not file any counter or reply affidavit. Respondents 2 and 3 in their reply affidavit stated that it was for the 1st respondent to explain the delay (referred as para VI of the writ petition ). However, they stated that the representation dated 13/5/1993 had been considered and rejected by the Central Government on 1/6/1993. (2) In this appeal, the 1st respondent has filed a reply affidavit. At para 3, this affidavit stated:

"in reply to the contents of para 4 it is submitted that the detenu s representation dated 3/5/93 and 13/5/93 were forwarded by Supdt. , Tihar Jail, New Delhi and both the representations were received in the COFEPOSA Unit of the Ministry on 10/5/93and 18/5/93 respectively. On receipt of the representations, the same were placed before the considering authority who directed to call for the para wise comments of the Sponsoring Authority. The comments were called on the 1st representation on 11/5/1993 and on the 2nd representation on 18/5/93. The Sponsoring Authority furnished parawise comments vide their letters dated 20/5/1993 and 27/5/1993 respectively and the same were received in the COFEPOSA Unit on 21/5/93 for the 1st representation and 28/5/93 for the 2nd representation. The case was processed and submitted to Joint Secretary (Cofeposa) on 31/5/1993 (29/5/93 and 30/5/1993 were Holidays, being Saturday and Sunday ). The joint Secretary Cofeposa is an officer empowered to consider such representations made by the detenues against the orders issued by the Government of National 538 Capital Territory of Delhi. Joint Secretary (Cofeposa) considered the representations and being devoid of merit rejected the same on 1/6/1993 and on the very say day, a m