JUDGMENT 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Banta Singh, father of Angrez Singh, the detenu, challenging the detention order F. No. 801/8/92-PITNDPS dated 7th April, 1992 under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act). The order passed under subsection (1) of Section 3 of the NDPS Act is as follows "F. No. 801/8/92/PITNDPS Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue West Block No. 1 Wing No. 5 Room No. 208-209, IInd Floor, R.K. Puram, New Delhi New Delhi 24-6-92 ORDER Whereas an order F. No. 801/8/92-PITNDPS dated 7 4-92 has been passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 for the detention of Shri Angrej Singh. Whereas the case of Shri Angrej Singh was placed before the Advisory Board who are of the opinion that there is sufficient cause for his detention; and Whereas, the Central Government has fully considered the report of the Advisory Board and materials on record; Now, Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 9(f) of the prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 1988 the Central Government hereby confirms the aforesaid detention order and further directs that the said Shri Angrej Singh be detained for a period of one year from the date of his detention, i.e. from 16.4-1992". 2. The said order of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India had been confirmed in exercise of power by Section 9(f) of the NDPS Act by the Central Government. The Central Government directed that Angrez Singh was liable to be detained for a period of one year from the date of his detention. Along with the order the petitioner also received the grounds on which the detention order of Angrez Singh was passed. 3. On 23-11-91 Angrez Singh alongwith his brother, while going in a Maruti Car bearing Registration No. DL-1 C-B/I 117 was detained by the officers of the Bureau. On seizure of the said car opium weighing 10.800 kgs. was found concealed in it. A case under section 8/18 of the NDPS Act was registered against him. 4. 3. On 23-11-91 Angrez Singh alongwith his brother, while going in a Maruti Car bearing Registration No. DL-1 C-B/I 117 was detained by the officers of the Bureau. On seizure of the said car opium weighing 10.800 kgs. was found concealed in it. A case under section 8/18 of the NDPS Act was registered against him. 4. According to the statement given by Angrez Singh, the petitioner was first taken to the House of Sukha Singh, resident of village Inderpura, Kesheoraipatan, District Bundi. On reaching the house of Sukha Singh, Angrez Singh changed his statement and stated that the aforesaid seized opium was supplied to him by one Abdul Sattar, resident of Kota whose house at Kota was known to him. He was accordingly brought to Kota on the same date but the concerned house situated in Talwandi was found locked. Subsequently, on inquiry it was ascertained that the resident of the house was a Muslim residing at Chhipa Board, District Baran where he recognised the house of Abdul Sattar but no narcotic drugs was found in that house. Abdul Sattar was absconding and as such, he could not be arrested. 5. Paramjeet Singh son of Banta Singh (brother of Angrez Singh) in his statement dated 23-11-91 disclosed that he had no knowledge about the contraband opium but confirmed the recovery of 10.800 kgs. of opium on 23-11-91 from the said Maruti Car. 6. Holding that if Angrez Singh was not detained he would continue indulging in Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs, the detention order was passed. It was mentioned in paragraph 9 of the grounds which is quoted below : "Even though prosecution proceedings under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 have been initiated against you, I am satisfied that there is compelling necessity, in view of the likelihood of your being released on bail under normal law and of the likelihood of your indulging in Illicit Traffic of Narcotic Drugs as is evident from the trend of your activities to detain you under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988". 7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has supplied a date-wise chart. The relevant dates are given below "24-2-92 Examined by Central Screening Committee the proposal for preventive detention, but did not clear the proposal for preventive detention of Pramjeet Singh. 7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has supplied a date-wise chart. The relevant dates are given below "24-2-92 Examined by Central Screening Committee the proposal for preventive detention, but did not clear the proposal for preventive detention of Pramjeet Singh. However, asked for more details about the detenue Angrez Singh. 1-4-92 The proposal for preventive detention of the detenue Angrez Singh finally cleared by the Central Screening Committee. 7-4-92 Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance submitted the proposal to the detaining authority. 7-4-92 Detention order passed by the Joint Secretary and forwarded to the Commissioner of Narcotics, Gawaliar. 13-4-92 Commissioner, Narcotics, Gawaliar sent the order along with the grounds of detention and documents etc. to the Deputy Commissioner of Narcotics Kota for serving on the detenue Angrez Singh. 15-4-92 The documents referred to above received at Kota. 16-4-92 Served on the detenue." 8. From the above chart It would be found that whereas on 1-4-92 the proposal for preventive detention of the detenue Angrez Singh was finally cleared by the Central Screening Committee, he was served with the copy of the detention order. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that as Angrez Singh was not communicated the grounds on which his detention had been made immediately after its passing, he was deprived of the opportunity conferred by Article 22(5), which reads as under : "22(5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order". His contention was that the grounds of detention had to be served on Angrez Singh immediately after its passing along with the detention order to enable him to afford earliest opportunity of making a representation. As that had not been done and inordinate delay took place in supplying of the material, that had been relied upon or referred to in the grounds of the detenue, there was infraction of the constitutional imperative enacted in Article 22(5), 10. Article 22(5) requires the detenu to be communicated . the grounds on which the order had been made to afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation. Article 22(5) requires the detenu to be communicated . the grounds on which the order had been made to afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation. In the instant case the Union of India has taken the matter of arrest of Angrez Singh lazily and did not. act with such despatch as was expected in a case of detention. A detention of a person affects his liberty that requires exhibition in preparation of the grounds and its communication on the detenue as soon as it was possible. 11. It is true as was emphasised by the Union Government that the phrase ''as soon as may be" does not exclude the reasonable time for formulating the grounds but failure to communicate the grounds of detention would be violative of Article 22(5), if reasonable exhibition is not shown in the same. Every detenue has a constitutional right to be furnished with all the grounds on which the order of detention against him has been made. Article 22 which provides for preventive detention lays down substantive limitation as well as procedural safeguards. The rights conferred are absolute in themselves. 12. We are satisfied on considering the whole case particularly, the reply filed on behalf of the Union of India that no explanation for delay in not complying with the requirement of Article 22(5) has been furnished. The reply is mercilessly silent about the delay. The proposal for preventive detention having been cleared by the Central Screening Committee the Union Government would have served its copy to Angrez Singh within two or three days, that was not done. The cause is unreasonable goes unexplained. As a result of inordinate delay the petitioner had not been afforded earliest opportunity of making a representation against his detention. The representation was filed by the petitioner on- 10.6-1992 as against his detention. It was, however, decided on 6-7-1992. 13. The argument of the petitioner's counsel was that unexplained delay in deciding the representation filed by him amount to a clear violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution and was sufficient to vitiate the detention. For the submission made, the petitioner's counsel relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Pabitra N. Rana v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1980 SC 798 . For the submission made, the petitioner's counsel relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Pabitra N. Rana v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1980 SC 798 . In that case, the representation was received by the Government on the 28th September, 1979 and it was decided on 3rd November, 1979, that is to say, after about one month and five days. In the instant case, about a month's time was taken by the Union of India in deciding the representation made by the petitioner's son Angrez Singh. 14. Our attention was also drawn to a case reported in Narendra Purshotam Umrao v. B.B. Gujral, (1979) SCR 315 where the Supreme Court while relying on an earlier decision in Pankaj Kumar Chakrabarty v. State of West Bengal, (1970) 1 SCR 543 pointed out that under Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution the detenue has a dual right, viz. : (1) to have the representation, irrespective of the length of detention, considered by the appropriate Government, and (2) to have the representation considered by the Board duly constituted under the concerned Act. In this case, the Supreme Court held : "We might further mention that the constitutional right to file a representation to the Government carries with it impliedly a right that the representation must be disposed of as quickly as possible and any unexplained delay would amount to a violation of the constitutional guarantee continued in Article 22(5). This Court has also pointed out that the obligation of the appropriate detaining authority to take a decision on the representation filed by the detenu is quite apart and distinct from its obligation to constitute a Board and to send the representation to it. The detaining authority is not entitled to wait for the opinion of the Board but has to take its decision without the least possible delay." 15. Under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, the representation has to be considered made by the detenue as expeditiously as possible. 16. In this case, the Union of India has not offered any explanation whatsoever for the delay. In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that there was unreasonable delay in deciding the representation filed by the detenu and that by itself is sufficient to render the detention void. 17. 16. In this case, the Union of India has not offered any explanation whatsoever for the delay. In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that there was unreasonable delay in deciding the representation filed by the detenu and that by itself is sufficient to render the detention void. 17. Counsel for the Union of India relied on a decision of this Court in Gyanchand fain v. State of Rajasthan ana others, 1992 (1) WLC (Raj) 602 for the submission that the delay of five months and 21 days in that case was ignored and the detention order was not held illegal on that ground. In every case of delay in deciding of the representation and making order depends on its own fact. In that case. the explanation had been found satisfactory by the Court. In the instant case, no explanation has been given for the delay in making the order and deciding the representation. 18. Counsel for the petitioner urged that the second bail application bad been rejected by the High Court on the same day on which the detention order was made, hence, that could not be a ground for passing the order. Reliance had been placed on paragraph 9 of the grounds given in justification of the detention order. 19. However, we are not impressed by the submission of the petitioner's counsel that as the bail application had been dismissed, therefore, that could not be a valid ground for detaining Angrez Singh. This controversy has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC 1 In this case, it was said : "A detention order can validly be passed even in the case of a person who is already in custody. In such a case, it must appear from the grounds that the authority was aware that the detenu was already in custody. When such awareness is there then it should further appear from the grounds that there was enough material necessitating the detention of the person in custody. This aspect depends upon various considerations and facts and circumstances of each case. If there is a possibility of his being released and on being so released be is likely to indulge in prejudicial activity then that would be one such compelling necessity to pass the detention order. This aspect depends upon various considerations and facts and circumstances of each case. If there is a possibility of his being released and on being so released be is likely to indulge in prejudicial activity then that would be one such compelling necessity to pass the detention order. The order cannot be quashed on the ground that the proper course for the authority was to oppose the bail and that if bail is granted notwithstanding such opposition the same can be questioned before a higher court. The materials show that the detaining authority was not only aware that the detenu was in jail but also noted the circumstances on the basis of which he was satisfied that the detenu was likely to come out on bail and continue to indulge himself in the smuggling activities. The allegation is that 50 gold biscuits of foreign origin were found in either side of the handle inside the lock system of the suitcase. This itself manifests the expertise of the carrier in smuggling. Therefore, it cannot be said that the detaining authority did not apply his mind to this aspect. It is entirely within his subjective satisfaction whether there are such compelling circumstances or not." 20. Whether such a detenu as Angrez Singh had the potentialities to indulge in future in the activities of NDPS was a question to be decided by the detaining authority on the basis of materials placed before him. 21. In Abdul Suthar Ibrahim Manik's case (supra), the Supreme Court said : "Whether detention was unwarranted in absence of antecedents and in view of solitary incident, is again a question of satisfaction of the detaining authority on the basis of the material placed before it. Even a solitary incident which has been detected may speak volumes about the potentialities of the detenu and merely on the ground that there were no antecedents the detention order cannot be quashed. The authorities cannot and may not in every case salvage the antecedents but even a solitary incident may manifest the potentialities of a detenu in the activities of smuggling." 22. The authorities cannot and may not in every case salvage the antecedents but even a solitary incident may manifest the potentialities of a detenu in the activities of smuggling." 22. As a result, the discussion of the points raised before us, we find that there was an infraction of the constitutional imperative enacted in Art, 22(5) on two grounds : firstly, the delay was caused in communicating the grounds of detention order and secondly, taking inordinate time in disposing of the representation. For either of the two, there is no explanation in the reply. 23. For the reasons given above, we allow the petition and quash the detention order dated 7th April, 1992. Although, we have held that the detention order of Angrez Singh under section 3(1) of the NDPS Act is illegal on account of infraction of Article 22(5), but it does not entitle him to be released on bail for the offence committed for which he is being tried under section 8/18 of the NDPS Act.Petition allowed. *******