JUDGMENT : R. C. P. Sinha, J.–The sole petitioner who is under detention pursuant to an ORDER :dated 3rd of January, 1986 passed by the State of Bihar under section 3 (1) (i) and (iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities. Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA ACT' and issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Home (Special), Bihar (Annexure-1) has filed this application for issuance of writ of habeas corpus after quashing the ORDER :contained in Annexure-1. In pursuance of the ORDER :contained in Annexure-1 the petitioner was arrested on 29th of March, 1986 and immediately thereafter the ORDER :contained in Annexure-1 and the grounds were served on the petitioner. 2. The facts leading to the passing of the ORDER :of detention are as follows : On the basis of a secret information, the Customs Superintendent (Preventive) Raxaul at about 7 AM on 2.6.1985 intercepted a rickshaw with two persons coming from Nepal side at the check post who disclosed their names as Ajay Kumar Gupta and Yogendra Kumar. A few minutes thereafter, a tempo with three persons corning from Nepal Side was also stopped who disclosed their names as Shyam Kumar, Bajrangi Kumar and Mahesh Kumar. All the aforesaid five persons were taken to the Customs Officer where they were searched but nothing was recovered. At the instance of the Customs Officer, the aforesaid persons were examined by Dr. R. P. Singh, Medical Officer of Raxaul Government Dispensary, who found their pelvie columns bulky und on his advice plain X-rays of their abdomen and pelvice were taken in his presence. The X-ray plates of all the five persons showed presence of foreign materials therein. Thereafter, all the five persons admitted to have secreted foreign marked gold packets in their rectums which were taken out. Two packets containing 10 gold pieces, two packets containing 6 gold pieces, one packet containing 2 rectangular gold biscuits and one small gold tablet were recovered from the rectums of Shyam Kumar, Ajay Kumar Gupta and Bajrangi Kumar respectively while one packet containing 3 gold foreign biscuits from the rectum of Mahesh Kumar and two packets containing gold bars from the rectum of Yogendra Kumar were recovered. All were worth Rs. 6,25,404/-. All were worth Rs. 6,25,404/-. All the aforesaid persons had stated that these foreign golds belonged to Ishwar Chand, Bimal Chand and Moti Chand (the petitioner) of Biharsharif who had gold and silver shops there. According to their statements, the petitioner and Ishwar Chand had called all the five persons at the shop of Ishar Chand in the evening of 29th May, 1985 and had asked them to proceed to Kathmandu on the 30th May, 1985 to bring gold biscuits and paid them Rs. 800/- in cash as remuneration, besides the journey expenses. The petitioner and Bimal Chand had handed over a chit to Shyam Kumar and told him that on production of this chit to Sri Teja Sao of Rampokhar, Kathmandu (Ratna Park), he would give gold. Accordingly, they had gone to Kathmandu. 3. Thereafter the business as well as the residential premises of Moti Chand was searched by the Customs Officer on 3rd of June, 1985, and two pieces of Chinese marked gold bars weighing 93,700 grams concealed in the cover of a camera were seized from his residential premises. Thirteen Chinese marked torches were also seized by the Customs Officer, besides Rs. 3,50,000/- in cash was also recovered and seized by the Income-tax Officer. The petitioner had denied that the gold seized at Raxaul Checkpost belonged to him. He was arrested and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. Later on, he was released on bail. Thereafter, the ORDER :contained in Annexure-1 was passed for detaining the petitioner in class III of Central Jail, Bhagalpur. The stand of the petitioner according to the original writ petition was that he had made representation which was addressed to the Deputy Secretary, Government of Bihar, Home (Special) and received by the Superintendent of Jail, Biharsharif on 15.4.86 which was not at all considered and disposed of. 4. Two counter-affidavits, one on behalf of respondent no. 1 sworn by Assistant Collector, Customs (Preventive), Division Motihari and the other on behalf of respondent no. 2 sworn by an Assistant in the Home (Special) Department dealing with COFEPOSA matter were filed. Reply thereto was also filed on behalf of the petitioner. 5. 4. Two counter-affidavits, one on behalf of respondent no. 1 sworn by Assistant Collector, Customs (Preventive), Division Motihari and the other on behalf of respondent no. 2 sworn by an Assistant in the Home (Special) Department dealing with COFEPOSA matter were filed. Reply thereto was also filed on behalf of the petitioner. 5. The hearing of this writ application was taken up on 4.8.1986 and continued till 5.8.86, when the case was adjourned to 11.8.1986 on which date an application on behalf of the petitioner was filed wherein prayer to make the Superintendent of Jail, Biharsharif and Bhagalpur Jail as party-respondents was made, but in view of the later development in the case I do not think it necessary to make them party to this writ application. 6. The hearing of this case was concluded on 14.8.1986 and the JUDGMENT : was reserved. Before the delivery of the JUDGMENT : learned counsel for the petitioner mentioned this case before me for further hearing on 29.8.86 and supplementary affidavit was also filed on that very date. Thereafter, supp1ementary counter-affidavit has been filed on 18.9.1986 and the parties have been heard. In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner on 29.8.1986 it has been stated that the detenu was handed over a letter no. 1604 dated 18th August, 1986 stating therein that the representation dated 21.4.1986 was received by the Government from Biharsharif Jail on 1.8.1986 which has been rejected. 7. In the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 it has been stated inter-alia, that the representation was filed on 21.4.1986 and not on 15.4.1986 as stated in the original writ petition. It has further been stated therein what the aforesaid representation was reportedly forwarded by the Jail Superintendent to the government on 3.5.1986 by ordinary post. Unfortunately, above representation did not reach Government in Home (Special) Department and perhaps it was lost in transit. When the fact came to the notice, the Superintendent, District Jail, Biharsharif was requested to send a copy of the representation dated 21.4.1986 which was received on 1.8.86 and after careful consideration the representation was rejected by the Government which was communicated to the detenu by Government letter dated 18.8.86. 8. When the fact came to the notice, the Superintendent, District Jail, Biharsharif was requested to send a copy of the representation dated 21.4.1986 which was received on 1.8.86 and after careful consideration the representation was rejected by the Government which was communicated to the detenu by Government letter dated 18.8.86. 8. On the basis of the supplementary petition and supplementary counter-affidavit it has been stated by Rameshwar Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that there has been undue delay in disposal of the representation dated 21.4.1986 filed by the petitioner, which has not been explained by the respondents and this alone is sufficient to quash the ORDER :contained in Annexure-1 and to allow the application. 9. From the facts stated above, now it is admitted that the representation was filed on 21.4.1986 by the petitioner in the Biharsharif Jail which was addressed to the Deputy Secretary, Home (Special), Government of Bihar which was rejected in the month of August, 1986. From the statement made in the supplementary counter-affidavit it is clear that the representation filed on 21.4.1986 was not sent to the Government before 3rd of May, 1986. No explanation whatsoever has been given as to why it was not sent before 3.5.1986. As mentioned above, again it has been stated that it was sent through ordinary post. It is well settled that where the liberty of a citizen is involved in any case the authority should take prompt step for sending the representation to the Government ensuring that the representation should reach in time. I do not understand as to why the Jail Superintendent should send it through ordinary post and not under registered cover or through special messenger. As mentioned above, it is also clear that the representation sent under ordinary post did not at all reach the Home Department with the result that another copy had to be sent on 1.8.1986 which was disposed of on 18.8.86. So in my opinion, this delay of about 4 months has not at all been explained by the State Government. 10. In support of the contention learned Counsel has placed reliance on the case of Rattan Singh and another v. State of Bihar (AIR 1982 Supreme Court, Page-1) which fully supports the case of the petitioner. So in my opinion, this delay of about 4 months has not at all been explained by the State Government. 10. In support of the contention learned Counsel has placed reliance on the case of Rattan Singh and another v. State of Bihar (AIR 1982 Supreme Court, Page-1) which fully supports the case of the petitioner. The unexplained delay in disposal of the representation of the petitioner is sufficient to quash the ORDER :of detention contained in Annexure-1 and to issue a writ of habeas corpus for release of the petitioner. 11. Some other points were also urged on behalf of the petitioner but in view of the fact that this application is being allowed on the ground of delay the other points need not be mentioned. 12. In the result, the application is allowed and the ORDER :contained in Annexure-1 is quashed and the petitioner is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Application allowed.