R. L. Gupta, J. ( 1 ) BY this writ petition under Article 226 of theconstitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminalprocedure, 1973 the petitioner seeks a declaration that the detention orderno. 673/361/91-Cus. VIII dated 20. 8. 91 passed by the third respondent Shrimahendra Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry offinance, New Delhi undersection 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreignexchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA Act forshort) in respect of Satish Kumar, detenu is illegal, void and bad in law andtherefore, same should be quashed and detenu be set at liberty. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts are that on 3. 8. 91, the officers of Air Intelligence Unitwere maintaining surveillance on the passengers arrived by Thai Airwaysflight TG-313 inside the Customs arrival hall when one passenger wasintercepted by them near the exit gate of the arrival hall while he hadopted to go out of the airport through green channel. On scrutiny of thepassport it came to light that his name was Satish Verma who had leftdelhi only on 1. 8. 91 for Singapore. On enquiry being made verbally fromhim about the possession of gold, he denied the same to the Customs Officer. He was taken to a separate counter and on interrogation finally confessedthat he had been carrying four small pieces of gold inside his stomach andrequested the Customs Officer to allow him to eject those 4 pieces voluntarily. Satish Verma was also noticed to have nodded his neck to give someignal to Paresh Dass, a sweeper of Calcutta Airport Authority, who wasthen going towards the bath room of the Airport. Paresh Dass went insidethe bath room and came out immediately and started moving quicklytowards the exit gate. Since he did not stop he was chased and finallyintercepted inside the domestic main lounge of Calcutta Airport. Bothsatish Verma and Paresh Dass were interrogated and it was known fromtheir statements that the present petitioner had come from Delhi and waswaiting out side the Airport building or nearby road to receive gold fromparesh Dass and Satish Verma. So the officers immediately looked for thedetenu and found him near Airport gate No. 2 of the Airport Lounge. Hisstatement also indicated that he had come to collect gold from the aforesaidtwo persons at Airport. Rest of the facts may not be necessaessary for thedecision of this petition. So the officers immediately looked for thedetenu and found him near Airport gate No. 2 of the Airport Lounge. Hisstatement also indicated that he had come to collect gold from the aforesaidtwo persons at Airport. Rest of the facts may not be necessaessary for thedecision of this petition. ( 3 ) THE aforesaid detention order has been challenged on behalf ofthe detenu on a number of grounds. However, the arguments have beenrestricted to grounds 12 and 13 of the additional grounds taken up in Cr. M146/92. The grievance in these grounds is that he had made a representationto the Advisory Board on 29. 11. 91 and the same had neither been consideredby the Appropriate Govt. /authority nor any decision communicated tohim. ln reply to the atoresaid grounds, it was stated in the counter that theaforesaid representation dated 29. 11. 91 addressed to the Central Advisoryboard was considered by Central Govt. independently but its reply wasnot issued separately to the petitioner since the confirmation of detentionorder had been issued on the basis of the report and representation and assuch it was not felt necessary to communicate the decision of the representation separately. ( 4 ) I have heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for theparties. In fact, we have a direct authority of this Court on this point inthe case of P. K. Madhavan v. Union of India, 1991 0 JCC 207. The facts inthat case were also similar and the question for consideration there also waswhether the representation had been considered by the Govt. independentlyand whether the decision, if any, was communicated to the petitioner. Rather in that case it was urged on behalf of the respondent that thedecision was taken on the representation but the same was communicated inthe shape of the confirmation order and it was not considered necessary thatthe decision of the rejection of the representation should be communicatedseparately. , However, this plea was not accepted by this Court and still itwas held that since the decision on the representation was not separatelycommunicated so the detention order was bad in law and there was nocompliance of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. In view of thisposition, nothing more remains to be said in this case also because in thiscase also there was no separate communication regarding rejection of therepresentation made by the detenu to the Advisory Board. In view of thisposition, nothing more remains to be said in this case also because in thiscase also there was no separate communication regarding rejection of therepresentation made by the detenu to the Advisory Board. ( 5 ) THUS the impugned detention order cannot be sustained and sameis hereby quashed. Since the detention order is void so the declarationunder Section 9 (1) of the Act will also have to be set aside and the sameis accordingly set aside. Detenu be set at liberty, if not wanted in anyother case or proceedings.