Mr. R. L. Gupta, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 ofthe Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminalprocedure the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus or anyother appropriate writ for quashing an order of detention dated 27. 7. 1992. F. No. 5/66/92-Home (P-II) passed under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation offoreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA for short) by the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi andfor the consequent release of the petitioner forthwith. ( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the detention of the petitioner are thathe Was intercepted at IGI Airport by the Customs officers on 30. 3. 1992 onhis arrival from Dubai. His personal search and that of his baggage yieldedrecovery of 400 gms. of gold valued at Rs. 1,72,000. 00and Indian currencyamounting to Rs. 4,100. 00. He was produced before the learned ACMM on31. 3. 1992 who remanded him judicial custody from time to time. On 8. 4. 1992a complaint under Sections 132 and 135 (l) (a) of the Customs Act was filedby the Customs Department in the Court of the learned ACMM. Theimpugned detention order was passed against him on 27/07/1992 undercofeposa and in pursuance thereto he was detained on 21. 8. 1992. ( 3 ) ALTHOUGH the detention order has been challenged on a number ofgrounds, learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of thearguments has restricted her arguments to only one ground taken up by wayof additional ground in Cr. M. 57/92. That ground is that the petitioner hadsent a representation dated 7. 11. 1992 in Urdu through a close friend to thepresident of India whereby besides asking certain information/documents,a prayer was also made for the revocation of the impugned detention order. It is then stated that till the filing of this application i. e. till 25. 1. 1993 thepetitioner had not received any reply and thus the long and undue delay onthe part of the Central Government in considering the representationrendered the impugned detention order illegal and void. lt is stated in thereply on behalf of the Union of India that the representation dated 7. 11. 1992was received in the Secretariat of the President on 23. 11. 1992 and from therein the Ministry s office on 25. 11. 1992. lt is stated in thereply on behalf of the Union of India that the representation dated 7. 11. 1992was received in the Secretariat of the President on 23. 11. 1992 and from therein the Ministry s office on 25. 11. 1992. It is then stated that the representationwas placed before the Detaining Authority on the same who directed thatcomments may be called from the Sponsoring Authority. The Sponsoringauthority submitted their comments vide letter dated 9. 12. 1992 which werereceived in the Ministry s office on 15. 12. 1992. Then the case was processedand submitted to the Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) on 16. 12. 1992 who considered it and rejected the representation. It is then alleged that the memointimating the petitioner about the rejected of his representation was issuedon 17. 12. 1992 and thus there was no undue and un-explained delay. ( 4 ) I have heard arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for theparties. The representation dated 7. 11. 1992 was received in the Secretariatof the President on 23. 11. 1992 and therefore, so far as that period isconcerned, it cannot be said that there was any delay because the representation itself was received in the Secretariat on 23. 11. 1992. However, there isconsiderable delay in the consideration of the representation between theperiod 25. 11. 1992 to 16. 12. 1192. It is not disputed that the office of thesponsoring Authority as well as the Detaining Authority are located in themetropolis of Delhi itself. It is not explained as to why the Sponsoringauthority sent their comments vide letter dated 9. 12. 1992 when therepresentation had been forwarded to them on the same date i. e. 25. 11. 1992. It is also further not explained why the letter dated 9. 12. 1992 of the Sponsoring Authority alongwith their comments was received in the Ministry soffice on I S. I 2. 1992. No reason has been assigned to this delay on behalfof the Union of India and therefore it must be presumed that there isunexplained delay of a period of about twenty days in the consideration ofthe representation of the petitioner in which he had asked for revocation ofthe detention order. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn myattention to the case of Mahesh Kumar Chauhan @ Bante v. Union of India andors. reported in 1990 (2) CRIMES 472, a decision of the Hon ble Supremecourt. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn myattention to the case of Mahesh Kumar Chauhan @ Bante v. Union of India andors. reported in 1990 (2) CRIMES 472, a decision of the Hon ble Supremecourt. In that case the counter affidavit of the Joint Secretary, Department,of Revenue, Ministry of Finance stated that the petitioner had made hisrepresentation on 21. 8. 1989 which was received in the office of thedepartment on 23. 8. 1989. It was forwarded to the Sponsoring Authorityon 25. 8. 1989 which sent its comments on 11. 9. 1989. Then the representationalongwith comments was processed and put no before the Minister of Statefor Revenue who considered and rejected the same on 15. 9. 1989. In para19 of the judgment the Hon ble Supreme Court held that except merelymentioning that the representation was forward to the concerned Sponsoringauthority on 25. 8. 1989 and the receipt of comments from the Sponsoringauthority on 11. 9. 89, there was no explanation as to why such a long delayhas occurred and in view of that fact the Supreme Court held that they hadno other option except to allow the appeal on the ground that the undueand unexplained delay was in violation of the Constitutional obligationenshrined in Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India rendering theimpugned order invalid. A similar situation arises in the present case becausethere is practically no explanation why a delay of about 20 days occurred inthe present case before the representation was finally considered and rejectedby the Detaining Authority. The impugned detention order is therefore,vitiated. ( 5 ) THE impugned detention order is, therefore, set aside. The petitioner will be set at liberty if not wanted in any other case or proceeding.