The central legal point established in the judgment is that the detention under COFEPOSA was upheld based on the finding of no unexplained delay in deciding the petitioner's representation.

By means of this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged his detention order dated 7- 8-2002 passed by the State of U. P. under Section 3 (1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (in short COFEPOSA ).

2. Along with order of detention, the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention, which disclosed that on 6-6-2002 on the basis of prior information Sleeper Coach No. S 6 of North East Express was checked at platform No. 3 of Railway Station Mughalsarai by Customs Authorities and petitioner along with one other person was arrested and on his personal search, he was found in possession of 17 pieces of gold biscuits of China mark and his associate was found in possession of 18 gold biscuits of China mark, which the petitioner and his associate had concealed in their waist in a packing tape. The weight of the biscuits were 4080 grams, the valued of which as assessed at Rs. 22,11,360. It was 24 carat gold biscuit and of foreign origin. On enquiry the petitioner and his associate disclosed that the above biscuits were smuggled from Nepal and were handed over to them at Sammrat Hotel in New Jalpaiguri to be carried to Allahabad. The petitioners statement was also recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, in which he admitted that he was smuggling gold of foreign origin. A case was registered against the petitioner under various provisions of Customs Act and the petitioner was detained in District Jail, Varanasi in connection with above case. He applied for bail on 8-7-2002, which was rejected by the Magistrate on 10-7-2002. He again moved bail application before Sessions Judge, who allowed the bail application on 24-7-2002. There was real possibility that the petitioner would be released on furnishing bail and surety bonds and on release on bail, he would indulge in similar activities in transportation of smuggled goods and smuggling.

3. We have heard Sri Imranullah, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A. G. A. and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and have perused the record.

4. The detention order was challenged on various grounds, but the learned counsel for the petitioner raised only one point that there was un-explained and inordinate delay in disposal of the representation of the petitioner, which rendered his continued detention invalid.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the representation of the petitioner with eight copies was handed over to the Superintendent, District Jail, Varanasi on 26-8-2002, but he did not transmit the above representation to the authorities concerned, but kept with him for four days and after keeping it for four days returned without any endorsement and the wife of the petitioner was informed by the Superintendent, District Jail, Varanasi that the representation of the petitioner shall not be forwarded through him. That again another representation was submitted on 2-9-2002 to the Jail Authorities under registered cover, which was not decided promptly.

6. In para 13 of the writ petition, it was alleged that the representation of the petitioner with eight true copies was handed over by the petitioner to the Superintendent, District Jail, Varanasi on 26-8-2002. However, after keeping it for four days, the same was returned without any endorsement and the wife of the petitioner Smt. Kusum was informed by the Superintendent, District Jail, Varanasi that the representation of the petitioner shall not be forwarded through him. In paragraph 16 of the petition, it was alleged that thereafter with a forwarding letter, the said representations were again dispatched on 2-9-2002 under registered cover to the Superintendent, District Jail, Varanasi, Principal Secretary (Home), Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, Governor of U. P. , Raj Bhawan, Lucknow and the Chairman, Advisory Board (Preventive Detention) Lucknow.

7. In paragraph 4 of his counter-affidavit dated 12-12-2002 Sri Lal Ratnaka