JUDGMENT Jeevan Reddy, J: In this writ petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus the validity of the detention of one Mohanlal Chunilal Jain, son’ of Chunilal, is being challenged. The detenu has been detained underS.3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The order is made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 16-9-1985. He was arrested on 17-12-3985 at Bombay, brought to Hyderabad, and lodged in the Central Jail, Hyderabad. Grounds of detention were served upon him within the prescribed period. He made a representation to the Government. It was rejected on 6-2-1986. 2. On 9-1-1986 he was intimated in writing that he case will come up for consideration before the Advisory Board and asked whether he wishes to appear before it. He expressed his willingness to appear before the Board, on 12-1- 1986. By letter dt.29-1-1986, the Government directed the Superintendent of Central Prison, Hyderabad (where the detenu is lodged) to inform the detenu that he case will be taken for consideration’ by the Advisory Board at 1-20 p.m., on 18-2-1986. This was done. The Advisory Board met on that day, considered his case and recommended to the Government stating that there is sufficient case for his detention. Accordingly, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.723, dt.25-2-1986 confirming the order of detention for a period of one year from the date of detention. 3. In this writ petition several grounds are urged by Sri B. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the detenu. It is, however not necessary to deal with all those contentions since we are inclined to release the detenu on the ground, which we now proceed to deal with. 4. After the detenu was told that his case will be taken up by the Advisory Board for consideration on 18-2-1986, he filed an application before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Hyderabad, on 10-2-86. We have perused the said application which is found in the record, at page 259. It is in Hindi language. The application, broadly rendered into English reads thus: “I am lodged in Central Jail since about two months. During this period I had sent a representation to the Chief Secretary. In spite of it I have not been released. I am not able to understand why I have not been released. Now I have to appear before the Chairman of the Advisory Board. During this period I had sent a representation to the Chief Secretary. In spite of it I have not been released. I am not able to understand why I have not been released. Now I have to appear before the Chairman of the Advisory Board. Before the date of hearing I want to meet on legal advisor Sri S.K. Srivastava as early as possible and I want to request him to prepare a representation as per my instructions. I hope that you would grant the permission as early as possible.” 5. The record shows that this application was forwarded to the Government. By its Memo No.2115/Gen.A/85-12,dt.l7-2-1986 the Government granted the said request. In this Memo the Government directed the Superintendent, Central Prison, Hyderabad to arrange an interview to the detenu with Sri S.K. Srivastava in the jail premises immediately, on any day in the presence of, and within the hearing of an officer of the Office of Collector, Central Excise, Guntur, as per the instructions contained in C1.6(1) of the COFEPOSA (Regulation of Place and Conditions) Order, 1975 and subject to any other conditions and restrictions as may be imposed by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Hyderabad. The record shows that on 18-2-1986 the Superintendent of Central Prison, Hyderabad, in turn, wrote to the Central Excise authorities at Hyderabad bringing the aforesaid Government Memo to their notice and intimating that he proposes to conduct an interview on 20-2-86 between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m., and requesting the officer concerned to make it convenient to be present at the time of interview. 6. It may be remembered that the Advisory Board was meeting on 18-2-1986 at 4.20 p.m. to consider the detenu's case. Finding that there was no response to his application dt. 10-2-1986, the detenu sent another application dated 14- 2-1986 addressed to the Chairman, Advisory Board, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, through the Jailer, Central Prison, Hyderabad. In this application the detenu stated that on 10-2-1986 he had requested for permission to have an interview with Sri S.K. Srivastava to prepare his representation: that, he was very weak in studies and is thus not in a position to understand the grounds or the material which is being relied upon against him. He therefore requested that he must be granted three days’ time after he has a meeting with Sri S.K.Srivastava. He therefore requested that he must be granted three days’ time after he has a meeting with Sri S.K.Srivastava. He stated that he will place the representation prepared in consultation with Sri S.K. Srivastava before the Board for its consideration. He requested that he may be granted some more time. This application was forwarded to the Government by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Hyderabad, on 15-2-1986. But, surprisingly enough we find that this application was received in the Secretariat only on 19-2-1986. There is no explanation for this uncalled for delay in the letter reaching the Secretariat. By 19-2-1986, it must be remembered, the Advisory Board had already met on 18-2-1986 and had made its recommendations. In other words, the application of the detenu dt. 14-2-1986 addressed to the Chairman of the Advisory Board was not place before, nor brought to the notice of the Advisory Board. 7. The question that arises in the above circumstances is, whether the constitutional right guaranteed to the detenu to have his representation considered by the advisory Board has been violated in the case of the detenu. Now it is well representation before the Advisory Board, and that in case the Advisory Board finds that there are no grounds for his detention, or his continued detention, it can recommend to the Government for his release, which the Government has to consider and pass orders. It is equally open to a detenu to file a written representation before the Advisory Board, if he so chooses. In this case, the detenu wanted to file a written representation before the Advisory Board, probably because he felt that he would not be in a position to personally present his case properly, or to meet or rebut the material being relied upon against him by the detaining authority. It is for this reason that he requested in writing for permission to consult a legal advisor, Sri S.K. Srivastava (who is not an advocate - we are told he is a retired Central Excise Official) to help him in preparing the written representation. This request was indeed granted by the Government, but it was granted on 17-2-1986 and communicated to the detenu only on 18-2-1986. This request was indeed granted by the Government, but it was granted on 17-2-1986 and communicated to the detenu only on 18-2-1986. The interview had to take place in the presence of the officials of the Central Excise Department, and there was hardly any time to arrange all that, because the Advisory Board was meeting on that very day. In other words though the request of the detenu was granted, it was granted in a manner, and in circumstances, where it really amounted to refusal. Over and above this, the detenu's application dated 14-2-1986 addressed to the Chairman of the Advisory Board to postpone the hearing so as to enable him to prepare a written representation in consultation with Sri S.K. Srivastava was not even brought to the notice of the Board. In this application, the detenu had submitted that he is not able to understand the grounds and the material relied upon against him, and that he requires assistance of the said gentleman for preparing a written representation to place before the Advisory Board for its consideration. It is true that it was open to the detenu to make a representation for adjournment when he was brought before the Advisory Board, which he did not do. (Of course, the detenu says that he made such a representation, but that it was not granted. However, the proceedings of the Advisory Board do not disclose that any such representation was made. We must accept the proceedings of the Advisory Board composed as it is of sitting and retired Judges of High Court - as correct and, accordingly, we must proceed on the footing that the detenu did not make any such representation before the Advisory Board). But the fact remains that he did make such a request in writing as far back as on 14-2-1986 which was not brought to the notice of the Advisory Board, only because of the delay and default on the part of the Government. It is also evident that the detenu only knows Hindi language, and though he may be an experienced businessman - whether he is carrying on the business lawfully or unlawfully, we are not concerned herein - he may not be well versed in matters of law, or may not be in a position to make an effective representation before the Advisory Board. Another fact to be noticed in this behalf is that the Advisory Board heard the Asst. Collector of Central Excise, Guntur, and also the Superintendent of Central Excise, Guntur - who generally deal with such cases and are thus well-versed both in law and facts - on 18-2-1986, when the detenu's case came up for consideration. The detenu was, no doubt, heard; but, evidently, he was not able to effectively represent his case. That is precisely what he has been saying throughout. In these circumstances, it must be held that a reasonable and adequate opportunity has not been afforded to the detenu to represent his case before the Advisory Board. 8. In Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 746: 1981 Cri L.J. 306, the Supreme Court held that the right of a detenu to consult a legal advisor of his choice for any purpose not necessarily limited to defence in a criminal proceeding but also for securing release from preventive detention or filing a writ petitioner prosecuting any claim or proceedings, civil or criminal, is obviously included in the right to live with human dignity and is part of personal liberty, and that the detenu cannot be deprived of this right nor can this right of the detenu be interfered with except in accordance with a reasonable, fair and just procedure established by a valid law. Accordingly certain prison Regulations which provided that a legal advisor of a detenu can have an interview with the detenu only by prior appointment, after obtaining permission of the District Magistrate, were held to be cumbersome and unreasonable enough to render the said right of the detenu illusory. It was observed that the further requirement that interview should take place in the presence of, and within the hearing distance of an officer of Customs/Central Excise/Enforcement to be nominated by the local Collector of Customs/Central Excise or Deputy Director of Enforcement who has sponsored the detention is equally an unreasonable procedure. They were accordingly struck down. It was further held that the regulations that regulate the right of the detenu to have interview with a legal advisor of his choice is violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution and must be held to be unconstitutional and void. They were accordingly struck down. It was further held that the regulations that regulate the right of the detenu to have interview with a legal advisor of his choice is violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution and must be held to be unconstitutional and void. It was added further: “We think that it would be quite reasonable if a detenu were to be entitled to have interview with his legal advisor at any reasonable hour during the day after taking appointment from the Superintendent of Jail, which appointment should be given by the Superintendent without any avoidable delay”. 9. We may, however, in this connection refer to sub-cl, (b) of Cl.(3) of Art.22 of the Constitution, which says that the right guaranteed under Cl.(1) of Art.22, viz., to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice shall not apply to a person detained under any law providing for preventive detention. Section 8(e) of the COFEPOSA also provides that a person against whom an order of detention has been made under this Act shall not be entitled to appear by any legal practitioner in any matter connected with reference to the Advisory Board. These provisions were considered by the Supreme Court in Smt. Kavita v. State of Maharashtra Smt. Kavita v. State of Maharashtra A.I.R. 1981 SC 1641: 1981 Cri.L.J. 1262. The complaint made by the detenu in this case was that he was not permitted to be represented by a lawyer despite a request being made by him to that effect and that the said denial has resulted in prejudice to him and that his right to make a representation has been violated. The argument was that though a detenu may not be entitled as of right to be represented by a lawyer before the Advisory Board, there was no bar against a lawyer being permitted to appear before the Advisory Board and hence the request of the detenu ought to have been considered on merits having regard to the facts of that particular case. Dealing with this connection, the Court observed: “It is true that whileS.8(3) dissentients a detenu from claiming as of right to be represented by a lawyer, it does not disentitle him from making a request for the service of a lawyer. Dealing with this connection, the Court observed: “It is true that whileS.8(3) dissentients a detenu from claiming as of right to be represented by a lawyer, it does not disentitle him from making a request for the service of a lawyer. We agree that the importance of legal assistance can never be over stated and as often than not adequate legal assistance may be essential for the protection of the Fundamental Right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Art.21 of the Constitution and the right to be heard given to a detenu byS.8(3), COFEPOSA. These rights may be jeopardised and reduced to mere nothings without adequate legal assistance. That would depend on the facts of each individual case, in the light of the intricacies of the problems involved and other relevant factors. Therefore, where a detenu makes a request for legal assistance, his request would have to be considered on its own merits in each individual case.” 10. However in that case, since the detenu did not make such a request when he was brought before the Advisory Board, the Court refused to interfere on his behalf. 11. Again in Nandlal Bajaj v. State of Punjab Nandlal Bajaj v. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1981 SC 2041: 1981 Cri.L.J. 1501, the principle of the above decision was re-affirmed. In this case, of course, while denying the assis tance of a legal practitioner to the detenu, the Advisory Board allowed the detaining authority to be represented by a counsel, in the circumstances, the detention was quashed. 12. The above decisions establish that while a detenu under COFEPOSA may not have a right to be represented by a counsel before the Advisory Board, he is entitled to make such a request and if he makes such a request, it has to be considered on merits, having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. It equally follows from the above principle that it is open to a detenu to ask for assistance of a counsel or other legal practitioner to help him in preparing a written representation which he wishes to place before the Advisory Board for its consideration. It equally follows from the above principle that it is open to a detenu to ask for assistance of a counsel or other legal practitioner to help him in preparing a written representation which he wishes to place before the Advisory Board for its consideration. In a given case a detenu may feel that he himself would not be in a position to properly and effectively represent his case and, therefore, he may wish to present his case in the form of a representation, in the preparation of which he requires or needs the assistance of a counsel. This right cannot be denied to the detenu in the light of the above decisions. Now, in this case, the request of the detenu was granted but granted in a manner which in actual fact was illusory and amounted to a denial. Moreover, when he applied to the Chairman of the Advisory Board, postpone the hearing of his case for a few days so as to enable him to c a written representations in consultation with his legal advisor, the second application was not even brought to the notice of the Advisory Board. It was also not as if the time for sending of opinion by the Advisory Board was about to expire; there was time enough to grant a short postponement. In the circumstances, it must be held that the detenu in this case was not afforded a reasonable and adequate opportunity to represented his case before the Board and thus the right guaranteed to him to make representation to the Advisory Board has been denied to him. In these, circumstances, the detention of the petitioner has to be quashed and is accordingly quashed herewith. 13. Before parting with this case, we feel constrained to repeat a few observations - the like of which we have already made in similar matters, viz., the uncalled for delays in processing and in dealing with these matters on the part of the Government. In this case, the petitioner filed his application for assistance to a legal advisor in preparing a written representation on 10th Feb., 1986. It was granted only on 17th February, which communication was received by the petitioner on 18th February 1986, on which date itself his case was being heard by the Advisory Board. There is no explanation why the authorities took seven days for considering the said request. It was granted only on 17th February, which communication was received by the petitioner on 18th February 1986, on which date itself his case was being heard by the Advisory Board. There is no explanation why the authorities took seven days for considering the said request. This is not all. On 14th February 1986 the petitioner sent and application addressed to the Chairman of the Advisory Board for postponing the hearing of this case scheduled to take place on 18th, because he had not thus far been allowed the opportunity to meet his legal advisor for preparing a written representation. This request of the petitioner was forwarded by the Superintendent Central Prison, Hyderabad to the Chief Secretary through his letter dt. 15-2-1986. It appears from the endorsement made on the said covering letter that it reached the Secretary to the Government only on 19-2- 1986. There is no explanation for this delay. It is true that 15th and 16th were holidays, being Saturday and Sunday. But 17th and 18th were working days. We are also told that such letters are sent by special messengers. There is no reason why it was not immediately received by the Government on 17th and forwarded to the Advisory Board. It is the above delays which have led to our decision releasing the detenu. We hope and trust that the Government issues necessary instructions to ensure avoidance of such delays and to ensure prompt processing of the matters relating to detention. 14. The writ petition is a accordingly allowed. The detenu shall be set at liberty forthwith - if his detention is not required in connection with any other case or proceeding. No costs. B.S. ----- Petition allowed.