MALIK, J. (Oral) ( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the detention order passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, under section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) on 3rd of March 1988. This order was passed with a view to preventing the detena from smuggling of goods. ( 2 ). This in turn was based on an incident dated 10th of December 1987 when the petitioner arrived at Calcutta Airport from Bangkok and opted for red channel tor declaring the dutiable articles in his possession. Nothing was recovered from the petitioner. The case set up by the authorities is that there persons, namely, Tashi Lama, Abdul Salam and one A. J. Alliew also landed at Calcutta Airport on the same flight. All the three of them checked in at Green Channel and the customs authorities on search recovered 1277 grams of gold from Tashi Lama. 617 grams of gold from Abdul Salam and 767 grams of gold from A. J. Alliews. This was concealed in inner seams of their jeans. On their statements Abdul Salam and A. J. Alliew arc stated to have disclosed that the gold was given to them by the petitioner. These people were arrested and takn to customs house at Calcutta. They were produced before C. . T. M. Barasat on 11th of December 1987 and were remanded to judicial custody till 24th of December, 1987. A bail application moved by the petitioner before the crurt on 11th December 1987 was rejected on that very day. On 24th of December 1987 anoher bail application moved before the C. J. M. Barasat was also rejected on the same day and therefter another bail application was rejected on 7th January 1988. The detenu was. however, ultimately. released by an order of the Calcutta High Court on 12th January 1988 on certain conditions. A number of contentions have been raised by the petitioner out of which two were mainly argued. The first contention of Mr. The detenu was. however, ultimately. released by an order of the Calcutta High Court on 12th January 1988 on certain conditions. A number of contentions have been raised by the petitioner out of which two were mainly argued. The first contention of Mr. Kochhar is that the Calcutta High Court had passed a conditional bail order directing, inter-alia, that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the High Court of Calcutta without the permission of the court and that his passport had been seized and as such the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that the detenu could indulge in smuggling is vitiated. This argument was countered by Mr. Lokur on the ground that all that is required under law is to bring all the facts to the notice of the detaining authority and if the detaining authority is still arrived at a subjective satisfaction keeping in view the background and the modus operandi of the detenu that he was likely to smuggle goods nothing further is required. Since I find out that this petition is to be allowed on a short ground I would not like to deal with this contention in this case. ( 3 ). The main contention of Mr. Kochhar is that the detenu had made a representation to the Central Government on 5th May 1988 and that there has been a long unexplained delay in the consideration of this representation. In this regard the detenu has raised a specific ground Nc. 9 alleging that there has been a long and unreasonable delay in the consideration of his representation violating his right under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and thereby vitiating the order of detention. This contention of the petitioner will have to be dealt with on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party in this regard. In the counter affidavit the detaining authority has asserted that there is no delay in the consideration of the representation. It is stated that the representation though dated 4th May 1988 is signd by the detenu on 5th May 1988 and was received in the secretariat on 13th May 1988. In the counter affidavit the detaining authority has asserted that there is no delay in the consideration of the representation. It is stated that the representation though dated 4th May 1988 is signd by the detenu on 5th May 1988 and was received in the secretariat on 13th May 1988. It is further stated that the representation was put up for consideration to the Central Government en 19th of May 1988 and the Central Government on careful consideration rejected the same of 30th May 1988 and a memorandum thereof was conveyed to the detenu on the same day. ( 4 ). There is no dispute in respect of the date on which the representation was made and this has been fairly stated before me by the learned counsel for the parties. The detenu is lodged in Calcutta jail. There has been no delay in the despatch of his representation which, in fact, has been received by the Central Government within a week s time. Admitted case of the detaining authority, therefore, is that the Central Government was in possession of the representation dated 5th May 1988 on 13th May 1988 but it was put up before the Central Government on 19th May 1988. In the counter affidavit there is no explanation as to what happened to the representation of the detenu between 13th May to 19th May 1988. Thereafter, it is also not disputed that the representation was actually considered by ths Central Government on 30th May 1988 and it was rejected on the same day. Admitted case of the detaining authority is that the Central Government was in possession of ths representation of the detenu on 19th May, 1988 but regardless of the fact that the case pertains to a detenu who was being detained without trial, it appears, that no cencern was shown by the Central Government to consider the representation with utmost promptitude as is required by law. There is no explanation of whatsoever kind as to what the Central Government was doing with the representation of the detenu between 19th of May 1988 and 30th of May 1988 when it was finally considered and rejected. Mr. Kochhar has invited my attention to the case of Harish Pahwa vs. State of U. P. , A. I. R. 1981 Supreme Court 1126 (1 ). Mr. Kochhar has invited my attention to the case of Harish Pahwa vs. State of U. P. , A. I. R. 1981 Supreme Court 1126 (1 ). Relying on this case he contends that the Central Government is duty bound not to show any indifference towards the representation of the detenu and to consider it with utmost promptitude as the liberty of a citizen is in peril. He contends that every day s delay is to be explained. In my view, even though facts of that case were a little different and certain explanation was tendered the Supreme Court did not feel satisfied with the explanation and over-ruled the contentions of the government. The present case appears to be worst in as much as there is absolutely no explanation for the delay and there is total lack of concern shown to the representation of the detenu. On this short ground, therefore, I allow this petition and quash the detention order. The detention order is quashed and it is directed that the detenu shall be released forthwith unless required in some other case.