R. L. Gupta ( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thepetitioner seeks quashing of detention Order No. 5/67/92-Home (P-ll) dated6. 8. 1992 and his continued detention under COFEPOSA. The order ofdetention was passed by the first respondent i. e. the Administrator, Nationalcapital Territory of Delhi. ( 2 ) THE brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are thatthe petitioner was apprehended at the Indira Gandhi International Airport on24. 4. 1992 with 203 grams of gold in the form of toffees, valued atrs. 58261. 00. His statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customsact. He was produced for remand on 25. 4. 1992 before the learned ACMM. when he retracted his statement. A complaint under the Customs Act wasfiled against him on 30. 4. 92. The impugned order of detention was passedagainst him on 6. 8. 1992 and served on 30. 9. 92, while the grounds of detention were served upon him on 2. 10. 1992. He filed a represeptation dated24. 11. 1992 addressed to the Hon ble Advisory Board. However, the same didnot find favour with the Board and it recommended confirmation of furtherdetention of the petitioner. On the basis of that recommendation andmaterials on record the Administrator issued an order dated 14. 12. 1992whereby he was pleased to confirm the further detention of the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE detention order has been assailed by the petitioner on variousgrounds. However, during the course of arguments, learned Counsel hasconfined her arguments to ground P in the petition. In this para it is statedthat petitioner s representation dated 24. 11. 92 had not been considered by thedetaining Authority or by the Central Govt. till the filing of the presentwrit petition. It may be noted that since the detention order was passed bythe Administrator of Delhi, it has been conceded before me that the representation could have been considered only by the Detaming Authority i. e. theadministrator and not by the Central Government. In reply to this para,the Deputy Secretary (Home) Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhistates that the representation was addressed to the Central Govt. or to thegovt, of National Capital Territory of Delhi. In reply to this para,the Deputy Secretary (Home) Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhistates that the representation was addressed to the Central Govt. or to thegovt, of National Capital Territory of Delhi. The same was considered bythe Detaining Authority along with other papers sent by the Advisory Boardwith its opinion before confirmation of the detention order ( 4 ) I have heard arguments advanced by Learned Counsel for thepetitioner and the first respondent i. e. the Administrator of the Govt. ofnational Capital Territory of Delhi on this ground. In fact, the contentionraised in this para has been settled by now by a number of authorities. Thefirst case in this respect is that of Smt. Gracy v. State of Kerala and Another1991 SCC (Cri) 467. in that case it was admitted that the Advisory Boardhad considered the detenu s representation before sending its opinion to thecentral Govt. along with the entire record including the representation submitted by the detenu. It was further admitted that the Central Govt. madethe order of confirmation dated 24/04/1990 on receipt of the opinion ofthe Advisory Board but there was no independent consideration of thedetenu s representation by the Central Govt. at any time. In the counteraffidavit it was not disputed that the Central Govt. did not at any time consider independently the detenu s representation addressed and given to theadvisory Board. It was held in that case that detenu s right to have therepresentation considered by the Govt. under Article 22 (5) is independent ofthe consideration of the detenu s case and his representation by the Advisoryboard. Following the aforesaid view it was then held by thisis Court in thecase of P. K. Madhvan v. Union of India, 1991 (2) C. C. Cases 341 (HC) (wherein the facts were similar) that this representation of the detenu having notbeen considered independently by the appropriate Govt. , there was a violation of the requirements of the Constitution as contained in Article 22 (5) asone of the safeguards provided to the detenu. Thereafter I also took thesame view in the cases of Satish Verma v. U. O. I. and Ors. , 1993 (1) Crimes 883=l (1993) CCR 667 and Kamal Agarwaly. U. O. I. and Ors. , 1993 (1) Crimes591. In the present case also it can he said that confirmation order regardingthe petitioner suffers from the same vice. The impugned detention order,therefore, is hereby quashed. , 1993 (1) Crimes 883=l (1993) CCR 667 and Kamal Agarwaly. U. O. I. and Ors. , 1993 (1) Crimes591. In the present case also it can he said that confirmation order regardingthe petitioner suffers from the same vice. The impugned detention order,therefore, is hereby quashed. Petitioner will be set at liberty if not wanted inany other case or proceedings.