S. C. JAIN ( 1 ) MR. Razaullah Khan Hassanally (hereinafter called the petitioner) has challenged the detention order dated 16. 12. 92 passed under Section 3[1] of COFEPOSA by filing this writ petition. ( 2 ) IN brief the facts as are apparent on record are that the petitioner was intercepted at the I. G. I. Airport, New Delhi when he arrived from Dubai on 19. 8. 1992 he allegedly handed over one polythene bag containing 2448. 60 gms of gold valued at Rs. 10,03,926. 00 to one Kamlesh Kumar, who was apprehended by the Customs Officers, at the exit gate of the Customs arrival hall. Shri Kamlesh Kumar as well as this petitioner allegedly made statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act and on the basis of the statements so made both of them were arrested and produced before the A. C. M. M. on 19. 8. 1992, and remanded to judicial custody. ( 3 ) ON 16. 12. 1992 the impugned detention order was passed against the petitioner under Section 3[1] of COFEPOSA. The impugned detention order was served on the petitioner on 17. 12. 1992 and the grounds of detention were served on him on 22. 12. 1992. A representation dated 28. 12. 1992 was sent by the petitioner to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 through Superintendent, Jail which was decided by respondent No. 1 on 21. 1. 1993 and the respondent No. 2 on 28. 1. 1993. This fact was duly considered by the Advisory Board and the order of detention was recommended to be confirmed by the Advisory Board. Thus the detention order was confirmed on 12. 3. 1993. ( 4 ) THEREAFTER, second representation was moved on behalf of the petitioner on 15. 5. 1993 mentioning some new facts therein which were not in existence at the time when the earlier representation was made. In para 2 of this representation it has been alleged that the detenue being a non-resident Indian brought 2448. 600 gms of gold valued at Rs. 10,03,926. 00 in view of the liberalised policies of the Government as per the Notification No. 117/92-Cus. dt. 1. 3. 92 as amended by Notification No. 176/92 Cus. dated 30. 4. 92 which permits import of gold by NRIs upto 5 kg on payment of duty in convertible foreign exchange. 600 gms of gold valued at Rs. 10,03,926. 00 in view of the liberalised policies of the Government as per the Notification No. 117/92-Cus. dt. 1. 3. 92 as amended by Notification No. 176/92 Cus. dated 30. 4. 92 which permits import of gold by NRIs upto 5 kg on payment of duty in convertible foreign exchange. But the detenu was falsely implicated by the Customs Officers and in fact even the Customs Department, sponsoring authority,who sponsored the COFEPOSA detention of the detenu, has taken a lenient view in case of the detenu in the adjudication proceedings and the Collector of Customs vide order dated 10-3-93 has released the gold of detenu on payment of some redemption fine. This fact is a new fact which was not available at the time of making of the earlier representation. Besides this point, some other points were also taken in this representation which according to the petitioner are additional points. That representation dated 15. 5. 1993 was not decided till 28. 6. 1993. ( 5 ) THE main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a considerable long time has been taken in deciding the second representation which resulted in the denial of the right as enshrined in Article 22 [5] of the Constitution. Though she has taken many other grounds seeking quashing of the detention order, but much stress has been laid by the learned counsel on this unexplained delay in disposal of the second representation dated 15. 5. 1993. In the counter affidavit filed by the Union of India on 7. 8. 1993 in para 2 it has been admitted that a representation dated 15. 5. 1993 in Urdu language from Mushtaq Ahmed, on behalf of the detenu, addressed to the President of India wasreceived in the COFEPOSA Unit on 27. 5. 93. President Secretariat took 12 days in sending the said representation to the COFEPOSA Unit. The President Secretariat receives thousands of letters/representations from the public all over the country. The letters/representations are sorted out and also translated wherever necessary to ascertain the subject matter. After the subject matter is ascertained, the same is sent to the concerned Department/ministry for further necessary action. On receipt of the representation in the COFEPOSA Unit, the same was placed before the considering authority who directed to call for the comments of the sponsoring authority. The comments were called on 28. After the subject matter is ascertained, the same is sent to the concerned Department/ministry for further necessary action. On receipt of the representation in the COFEPOSA Unit, the same was placed before the considering authority who directed to call for the comments of the sponsoring authority. The comments were called on 28. 5. 93 which the sponsoring authority furnished vide their letter dated 24. 6. 93 and received in the COFEPOSA Unit on 28. 6. 93. The case was processed and submitted to the Joint Secretary [cofeposa] who has been empowered by Finance -Minister vide Order No. 685/14/84-Cus VIII, dated 26. 4. 91 to consider such representations made by the detenus against the detention orders passed by the State Govt. , on 28. 6. 93. It is stated that on 28. 6. 93 itself the Joint Secretary (Cofeposa) considered the representation and being devoid of merit rejected the same. As per this affidavit of Mr. Roop Chand, Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, there was no undue or unexplained delay in considering the representation by the Central Government. Admitting the contents of this affidavit to be correct, the delay of about one month i. e. from 28. 5. 93 to 24. 6. 93 in not sending the comments by the sponsoring authority, i. e. the Customs Department has not at all been explained. No affidavit of any officer from the Customs Department has come forward to explain the delay of about one month in sending the comments. It is settled principle of law, as has been laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in various decisions that the detenu has an independent constitutional right to make his representation under Article 22 [5] of the Constitution of India. Correspondingly, there is a constitutional mandate commanding the concerned authority to whom the detenu forwards his representation questioning the correctness of the detention order clamped upon him and requesting for release, to consider the said representation within reasonable dispatch and to dispose the same as expeditiously as possible. This constitutional requirement must be satisfied with respect but if this constitutional imperative is observed in breach, it would amount to negation of the constitutional obligation rendering the continued detention constitutionally impermissible and illegal, since such a breach would defeat the very concept of liberty - the highly cheris hed right - which is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. However, it has been held that what is reasonable dispatch depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid in that regard. In Mahesh Kumar Chauhan @ Bante vs. Union of India and Ors [crimes 1990 {2} 472] it has been observed by the Hon ble Supreme Court that ". . . Inspite of the weighty pronouncements of this Court making the legal position clear, it is still disquieting to note that on many occasions the appropriate authorities cause considerable delay in considering and disposing of representations and also exhibit culpable indifference in explaining such delay. We feel that in case the appropriate authoritis unable to explain personally the delay at various stages, then it will be desirable - indeed appropriate - for the concerned authority or authorities at whose hands the delay has occured to individually explain such delay. " ( 6 ) - In this case, as is apparent from record, this delay of about 26 days which has occured in sending the comments by the sponsoring authority has not been explained at all. This unexplained delay in furnishing the comments by the sponsoring authority is sufficient for quashing the detention order and for holding that the detention order is invalid. This impugned detention order thus cannot be sustained on this ground alone. ( 7 ) WITHOUT commenting upon the other grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the petition, on this ground alone I allow this writ petition, set aside the impugned detention order dated 16. 12. 1992 and the Rule is made absolute.