V. B. Bansal ( 1 ) IN this writ petition prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 7. 12. 89 passed u/s. 9 (l), COFEPOSA Act, 1974 (the Act) by the Additional Sccy. to the Govt. of India with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and from engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods. ( 2 ) DETENTION order dated 23. 1189 was passed against the petitioner by the Administrator of Delhi in respect of an incident dt. 18. 6. 89. The petitioner was detained on 25. 11. 89 and the impugned declaration order was passed on 7. 12. 89. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has restricted his argument to one point only. He has submitted that the petitioner was not informed about his right of making a representation against the order of declaration either in the declaration itself or subsequently on account of which he has been deprived of his statutory right of making a representation. It has further been submitted that interim representation dt. 5. 3. 90 was sect by him addressed to Shri A. C. Saldanha, Additional Secy. as also the Secy. to the Govt. of India, Min. of Fin. Deptt. of Revenue stating therein that "detenu is advised to submit that he has belatedly discovered that he had a right of representation against his continued detention as a result of declaration u/s. 9 (1) of the Act about which he ought to have been appraised in the declaration or by way of a separate communication contemproreously with the declaration so that he could exercise his right u/art. 22 (5) of the Constitution expeditiously in time". It is also submitted that the petitioner wanted confirmation from the Govt. about his right of making such a representation and prior to that no representation has been made by the petitioner. This representation has admittedly been rejected by the respondent on 12 3. 90 ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent has not controverted the factual position. It is, thus, clear as a fact that the petitioner has not been given information about his right of making a representation against the impugned declaration either in the declaration or thereafter and it is only on 5. 3. 90 that the petitioner wanted a confirmation about the knowledge of his right of making a representation. It is, thus, clear as a fact that the petitioner has not been given information about his right of making a representation against the impugned declaration either in the declaration or thereafter and it is only on 5. 3. 90 that the petitioner wanted a confirmation about the knowledge of his right of making a representation. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there has been a denial of a right of representation to the petitioner making a representation resulting in violation of Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution as a result of which the declaration is unjustified and liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the case Jagprit Singh vs. U. O. I. J. T. 1990 (3) S. C. 293, wherein it has clearly been held that a detenu has a right to make a representation against a declaration to the appropriate authorities and if no such information is given or if there is unreasonable delay in making him aware of such a right the detention would be inconsistent with Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has submitted that Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution does not apply to order of declaration and that nature of satisfaction u/s. 3 is similar to the satisfaction required u/s. 9 of the Act. He has submitted that the petitioner was made aware of his right of making a representation while serving him with the order of detention and so the judgment in Jagprit Singh s does not appear to be correct law. I am afraid this argument can hardly be open to the counsel to be made in this Court. There is a constitutional mandate for all the Courts in India to follow judgment of Supreme Court. A bare reading of the judgment of Jagprit Singh (supra) makes it abundantly clear that if the petitioner is not made aware of his right of making a representation against a declaration the detention would become unjustified. The declaration in these circumstances, has to be set aside. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the order of detention dated 23. 11. 89 the petitioner was detained on 25. 11. 89 and the order of detention was confirmed on 11. 5. 90. Counsel for respondent has verified the correctness of these dates. The declaration in these circumstances, has to be set aside. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the order of detention dated 23. 11. 89 the petitioner was detained on 25. 11. 89 and the order of detention was confirmed on 11. 5. 90. Counsel for respondent has verified the correctness of these dates. It is, thus, clear that the order of confirmation of detention was passed beyond three months. There is no dispute about the legal proposition that once the declaration is set aside the consequences would follow including the release of (he detenu especially when the order of confirmation was also passed more three months after the order of detention. Petition Allowed