V. B. Bansal, J. ( 1 ) THIS order is to dispose of a petition under Article226 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminalprocedure by the petitioner praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpusquashing the order of detention dated 14/02/1990 passed by respondent No. 2 under Sec. 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcoticdrugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short the Act) and also for quashing the declaration dated 8/03/1990 passed by Shri K. Prakash Anand,addl. Secretary to the Govt. of India, respondent No. 3 and that the petitionermay be ordered to be released forthwith. ( 2 ) ON 14/02/1990 Smt. Nisha Sahai Achutchan, Jointsecretary to the Government of India, and a specially empowered officer undersec. 3 (1) of the Act passed an order that the petitioner be detamed and keptin custody in the Dum Dum Central Jail, Calcutta with a view to preventinghim from engaging in the possession and export from India of Narcotic Drugs. This order was served upon the petitioner on 22/02/1990 when hewas already in custody. The grounds of detention along with the documentsrelied upon were also made available to him. ( 3 ) THE allegations against the petitioner, briefly, stated, have beenthat on 25/11/1989 he was found in possession of 2. 8 kgs. of heroinwhich was kept concealed by him in his baggage and had not been declared. He was arrested on 25/11/1989 produced in the Court of CJMBarasat and has been in custody under different orders of remand by the concerned Court. ( 4 ) ON 6/03/1990 Shri K. Prakash Anand, Additional Secretary tothe Government of India, a specially empowered officer by the Centralgovernment passed a declaration to the effect that he was satisfied that thepetitioner was likely to engage in illicit traffic, i. e. possession and export fromindia of Narcotic Drugs out and through the Customs Airport at Calcuttawhich was an area highly vulnerable to such illicit traffic as defined in explanation I to Section 10 (1) of the Act. In pursuance of this declaration an orderdated 23. 5. 90 was passed by the Central Government issued under the signatures of A. K. Roy, Under Secretary to the Government of India that thepetitioner be detained for a period of two years with effect from 2 2/02/1990. In pursuance of this declaration an orderdated 23. 5. 90 was passed by the Central Government issued under the signatures of A. K. Roy, Under Secretary to the Government of India that thepetitioner be detained for a period of two years with effect from 2 2/02/1990. ( 5 ) A number of grounds have been taken by the petitioner challenging his detention. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has, however, restrictedhis submission to one ground. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after theissuing of declaration against the petitioner he was not informed by the appropriate authority that he had a right of making a representation against thesaid declaration on account of which the petitioner has been deprived of hisvaluable right to challenge the said declaration. He has also submitted thatit was on this account and the petitioner being ignorant he could not. exercise his right of making a representation against the said declaration onaccount of which the detention of the petitioner cannot be sustained. Thisplea has specifically been taken by the petitioner in para XX (iii) of thegrounds. ( 7 ) I have gone through the reply in the counter-affidavit of the respondent in which this plea has not been denied. Learned Counsel for the respondent when asked could not controvert the claim of the petitioner that thepetitioner was not made aware of his right of making a representation againstthis declaration. All that has been submitted by learned Counsel for the respondent was that the declaration was made by the competent authority inexercise of the powers under Sec. 10 (1) of the Act and no fault could be foundagainst the said declaration. I am afraid this may not be the answer to theargument and the simple question to be answered by the learned Counsel forrespondent was as to whether the petitioner was made aware of his right ofmaking a representation against the declaration. A perusal of the aforesaiddeclaration makes it abundantly clear that there is no mention in it that thepetitioner could make a representation against this declaration. There is nomaterial on behalf of the respondent to indicate that the petitioner was madeaware of such a right even subsequent to the making of this declaration. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent has also not controverted theclaim of the petitioner that no representation at all has been made by the petitioner against this declaration. There is nomaterial on behalf of the respondent to indicate that the petitioner was madeaware of such a right even subsequent to the making of this declaration. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent has also not controverted theclaim of the petitioner that no representation at all has been made by the petitioner against this declaration. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to thefactual position, namely that the petitioner was not made aware of his rightof making a representation against the declaration and no representation at allhas been made by the petitioner against such a declaration. ( 9 ) THE short question now for consideration is about the effect of thepetitioner being not made aware of such a right. Case Shri Jagprit Singh. v. Union of India and Ors. JT 1990 (3) S. C. 293 is a judgment on all force infavour of the case of the petitioner. It has specifically been held by thesupreme Court that a detenu has a right of being informed that he can make arepresentation against the declaration and if not made aware or if there is adelay in making him aware of such a right it would be inconsistent with theprovisions of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and, thus, the detention beyond the original period of one year would not be justified. Thisjudgment has been followed by this Court in numerous cases including Gurmeetsingh v. Union of India and Others, 1990 (3) Delhi Lawyer 221; M. A. Pockethaji v. Union of India and Ors. , 1990 (3) Delhi Lawyer 170 and Mohan Lal v. UOI and Ors. , Cr. W. No. 288 of 1990 decided on 4/02/1991. ( 10 ) IT is, thus clear that the continued detention of the petitioner inpursuance of this declaration cannot be sustained. ( 11 ) AS already referred to the petitioner was detained on 2 2/02/1990 in pursuance of the detention order dated 14/02/1990. The period of one year of detention has already lapsed. In these circumstances, the petitioner has a right to be released. ( 12 ) IN the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. Rule is madeabsolute. Continued detention of the petitioner in pursuance of the declaration dated 8/03/1990 and order of confirmation dated 23/05/1990cannot be sustained. The petitioner is ordered to be released forthwith, if notraquired in any other case.