P. S. GUPTA, I. P. SINGH, JJ.

( 1 ) BY this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 8419 of 1983 Under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner, Harpal Singh Yadava, has challenged his detention order passed under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act), by the State of Uttarpradesh, on 30th August. 1932.

( 2 ) THE detention order against the petitioner was passed by the State Government on 30-8-1982. As the petitioner was alleged to have been absconding, the detention order was served on him on 19-4-1983 when he was lodged in the Central Jail, Varanasi, after his arrest on 18-4-1983 by the officers of the Customs Department, Ghaziabad. The grounds of detention were also served on him the same day in the aforesaid jail. He submitted his representation against the detention on 29-4- 1983 His matter was also placed before the Advisory Board that opined that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner and forwarded its opinion to the State Government on 20-5-1983. The State Government on 2-6-1983 had confirmed the detention order.

( 3 ) THE petitioner thereafter submitted another representation under Section 11 of Cofeposa Act for revocation of is detention order on 21-6-1983 to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Varanasi. This representation was received by the State Government on 28-6-1983 and was disposed of on 14-7- 1983 by a rejection order passed by the Chief Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh Government.

( 4 ) THOUGH the detention order has been challenged on many grounds, much stress has been laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Daya Shanker Misra, Advocate, on the ground that the representation submitted by the petitioner on 21-6-1983 has been disposed of by the State Government with inordinate delay which makes the detention illegal.

( 5 ) TO substantiate his contention he has relied on the various pronouncements of the Honble Supreme Court as well as of this Court. In Smt. Khatoon Begum v. Union of India and others, it has been held as under: The right of detenu to have his representation considered at the earliest opportunityt and the obligation of the detaining authority to consider the Representation at the earliest opportunity is not a right and On obligation flowing from either the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974, or the National Security Act or, for that matter any other Parliamentary or State law providing for preventive detention. They are a right and an obligation created by the very Constitution which breathes life into the Parliamentary or State Law. Article 22 (5) enjoins a duty on the authority making the order of detention to afford the detenu the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. The right and obligation to make and to consider the representation at the earliest opportunity is a Constitutional imperative which cannot be curtailed or abridged. If the Parliament or the State Legislature making the law providing for preventive detention devises a circumlocutory procedure for considering the representation or if the interdepartmental consultative procedures are such that delay becomes inevitable, the law and the procedures will contravene the constitutional mandate. It is essential that any law providing for preventive detention and any authority obliged to make orders for preventive detention should adopt procedures calculated towards expeditious consideration of representations made by detenus. It will be no answer to a demand for liberty to say that administrative red tape make delay inevitable.

( 6 ) IN Barish Pahwa v. State of U. P. and others, their Lordships observed as follows: The representation made by a detenu has to be considered without any delay. The Supreme Court does not look with equanimity upon delays when the liberty of a person is concerned. Calling comments from other depa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document