MAUK, J. (Oral) ( 1 ) THE pictiucier is aggrieved of the detention pursuant to the detention order dated 1st of March 1988 passed under section 3 (1) read with section 2 (f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, by the Delhi Administration. The detension order was passed with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling goods, namely, foreign currency out of India. ( 2 ) THIS followed an incident dated 6th of November 1987 when the petitioner was about to board a flight British Airways Flight No. 146 and was to land at Kuwait. On presenting himself for customs clearance he was found carrying US $ 50,780, Kuwait Dinnar 115 and UAE Dirham 10. The detenu-petitioner failed to produce any evidence about his being in lawful possession of this foreign currency. The matter was investigated and it was found that the petitioner-detenu was smuggling this foreign currency out of India. ( 3 ) THE petitioner-detenu was arrested on the same date, but was granted bail on 20th of November 1987. Admittedly. the petitioner-detenu along with his family is settled at Kuwait. In these circumstances, he made an application to the court of the A. C. M. M. New Delhi for grant of permission to go abroad and see his family members. This permission was not granted and by an order dated 13th of January 1988 the prayer was declined. On 18th of January 1988, the petitioner made an. application to the learned A. C. M. M. to the effect that his bail be cancelled and his surety be discharged and his case be taken for trial at the earliest. Admittedly, therefore, on the day when the detention order was pasted the detenu-petitioner was in judicial custody. This fact was taken notice of by the detaining authority as is disclosed by the grounds of detention, but there is no further mention in the ground of detention that the detaining authority still found it necessary muchless a compelling necessity to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from indulging in any future prejudicial activity. Mr. This fact was taken notice of by the detaining authority as is disclosed by the grounds of detention, but there is no further mention in the ground of detention that the detaining authority still found it necessary muchless a compelling necessity to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from indulging in any future prejudicial activity. Mr. Arora, representing the pituioner-detenu, therefore urged that the detention order is vitiated on this ground as the detaining authority has not spelt out the compelling necessity tor detaining the petitioner under these circumstances and that even if it was expiessly stated by the detaining authority it is not based on any material. ( 4 ) SINCE I find that this detention order is vitiated on altogether a different ground I do not feel inclined to go into the merits or otherwise of the aforesaid contentions raised by Mr. Arora. ( 5 ) IN this case, the detenu, admittedly, made a representation on 15th of April 198810 the Central Government which was received by the Central Government on 18th of April 1988. The petitioner has specifically raised a ground that there has been an unexplained delay in the consideration of the representation by the Central Government and this is so stated in ground No. 8 of his petition. The delay in the consideration of the representation has been explained by the respondent No. I Union of India in reply to this ground in the following terms: "in reply to ground No. 8 it is specifically denied that there is delay in considering the representation of the petitioner. It is further specifically denied that the order of detention is illegal and void. It is stated. that representation dated 15th of April 1988 was received in the COFEPOSA section of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, on 18th of April 1988. As there were some submissions from the petitioner for which information was not readily available with the Ministry, a copy of the representation was forwarded to the Collector of Customs, Delhi for offering his comments on 19th of April 19s8. Comments from the Collector of Customs were received back on 10th of May 1988. As there were some submissions from the petitioner for which information was not readily available with the Ministry, a copy of the representation was forwarded to the Collector of Customs, Delhi for offering his comments on 19th of April 19s8. Comments from the Collector of Customs were received back on 10th of May 1988. The representation alongwith comments were put up to the Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) (on 10th of May 1988 who forwarded it to the Additional Secretary (Economic Intelligence Burean) whose office is located in North Block, New Delhi, on the very same day. The Additional Seacretary forwarded the representation alongwith his comments to Minister of State (Revenue) on 11th of May, 1988. The Minister of State for Revenue with his comments forwarded the representation to the Finance Minister on the very same day. However, the Hon ble Finance Minister considered and rejected the representation on 12th May 1988 and the file was received back by the COFEPOSA section on 17th of May 1988 and on the very same day a memorandum rejecting the rcpresentation was sent to the detenu. " ( 6 ) BASED on this narration of the events as to now the representation was dealt with, Mr. Watwani, learned counsel for the Union of India, maintains that the representation has been dealt with expeditiously. It would be noticed from the counter affidavit of the Central Government that the representation was received in the COFEPOSA section of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, on 18th of April 1988. It is nowhere stated in the counter affidavit that it was put up before the Minister concerned for consideration in that day. On the other hand, it is stated that it was sent for comments to the Collector of Customs on 19th of April 1988. This court has on several occasions observed that if the detenu makes a representation it must be shown that is was out up before the appropriate authority without any waste of time, and if the appropriate authority finds if necessary to call for further comments if may not be, strictly speaking, objectionuble but then it must be shown that the decision to call for comments was that of the appropriate authority. Based on a marginal note on the original record Mr. Watwani maintains that this note is by the Minister. Frankly speaking. Based on a marginal note on the original record Mr. Watwani maintains that this note is by the Minister. Frankly speaking. I have not been able to find out if it is so nor has such a stand been taken in the counter affidavit. But assuming that the. rspresentation was put up before the appropriate authority on 19th of April 1988 the explanation extendsred in the counter affdavit would show that it has not received the treatment as required by law at the hands of the appropriate government It is admitted that on 19th of April 1988 if was. sent to the Collector of Customs for comments which comments were finally received on loth of May 1988. What happened between 19th of April 1988 and 10th of May 1988 has not been spelt out The principle laid down by the Supreme Court is that delay by itself may not be fatal provided it is properly explained, in. the present case, both the appropriate govermnent and the Collector of Customs have their offices in Delhi itself. 7 here is nothing to indicate as to what was happening between 19th of April 1988 till 10th of May 1988. The attitude of the appropriate government between these 20 days has been that of total. indifference towards the representation of the detenu. I am not told that there was any further communication between the Central Government and the Collector of Customs The unexplained delay in the consideration of the representation of She detenu us such vitiates the order of detention. The petition is allowed and the continued detention of the petitioner is quashed. The petitioner shall be released forthwith unlesrequired in some other case.