S. C. Jain ( 1 ) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition are that thepetitioner/detenu was intercepted at the IGI Airport, New Delhi, on his arrivalfrom Dubai and as a result of search of his baggage, 2913. 500 grams of gold of 24carat purity of foreign origin valued at Rs. 11,53,746. 00 (M. V.) were recovered fromhis possession. The statement of the petitioner/detenu was recorded under Section108 of the Customs Act wherein he stated that in his suit case there was a falsecavity which was used for exporting foreign currency to Dubai on 5. 1. 93. He alsoadmitted about the recovery of the said contraband gold from him. He has alsoadmitted that he had been going abroad and was involved in smuggling activitiesearlier also. He was arrested and produced before the A. C. M. M. , who remandedhim to judicial custody. On 3. 3. 93 a complaint was made against him under Section132 and 135 (1) (a) of the Customs Act. On 15. 4. 93 he was granted bail by the learnedadditional Sessions Judge on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in the like amount. However, on 23. 4. 1993 the impugneddetention order being F. No. 5/15/93/home (P-ll) was passed by the competentauthority of the National Capital Territory of Delhi with a view to preventing himfrom smuggling goods in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3[l] of theconservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,1974. ( 2 ) THIS detention order has been challenged by this detenu on variousgrounds. The first contention is that he only understands Gurmukhi/hindilanguage and that the grounds of detention were not supplied in. Gurmukhi orhindi language and therefore, he could not make an effective representation,rather he sent two representations on 28. 4. 93 - one addressed to the Detainingauthority and the other to the Central Government-demanding the grounds ofdetention in Gurmukhi or Hindi languages known to him so as to file an effectiverepresentation, but no reply was received by him. According to the learnedcounsel, this amount? to violation of his fundamental right as enshrined in Article22 of the Constitution. 4. 93 - one addressed to the Detainingauthority and the other to the Central Government-demanding the grounds ofdetention in Gurmukhi or Hindi languages known to him so as to file an effectiverepresentation, but no reply was received by him. According to the learnedcounsel, this amount? to violation of his fundamental right as enshrined in Article22 of the Constitution. ( 3 ) THE second contention raised by the learned Counsel is that the Sponsoringauthority did not place before the Detaining Authority the most vital and materialdocuments which could have influenced the mind of the Detaining Authority oneway or the other at the time of passing of the impugned detention order, i. e. theretraction letter dated 22. 1. 93 and that of 1. 2. 93; and the bail bond dated 22. 4. 93. The said documents were not supplied to the detenu despite the fact that he madea specific request for the supply of the same vide his representation dated 13. 5. 93. ( 4 ) ANOTHER contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is thatthe incident was of 8. 1. 93 and the detention order was passed only on 23. 4. 93. Hesubmitted that the long and undue delay in passing the order of detention snatchedthe nexus between the activity alleged and the activity sought to be curbed bypassing the impugned order of detention and on this ground also the detentionorder has become illegal and void. It was incumbent upon the Detaining Authoritythat the representation of the petitioner was dedlt with continuously till its finaldisposal and communication thereof to the detenu and their failure to do sorendered the impugned detention order illegal and void. ( 5 ) THE last submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is thatthe detention of the petitioner is based on a single solitary incident and there is nomaterial to suggest that he has such inclination, tendencies and potentialities orpropensity which can give rise to a reasonable apprehension of the prejudicialactivity being repeated by him in future. Therefore, subjective satisfaction of thedetaining Authority that the detenu unless prevented will continue to engagehimself in smuggling goods is vitiated and has thereby rendered the impugneddetention order illegal and void. Therefore, subjective satisfaction of thedetaining Authority that the detenu unless prevented will continue to engagehimself in smuggling goods is vitiated and has thereby rendered the impugneddetention order illegal and void. ( 6 ) RELIANCE has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner onvarious decisions of this Court being Om Parkash Srichand Kukreja v. State (44 (1991) D. L. T. 413]; Nisarahmed v. Union of India and Ors [cr. W. P. No. 501 of 1990decided on 31/05/1991]; Varinder Singh Batra v. Union of India and Others[cr. W. P. No. 45 of 1993 decided on 13/08/1993]; and Mohammed Salim Khatriv. Unionoflndiaandothers [cr. W. P. No. 119of 1993] insupport of her contentionsraised during the course of the arguments. ( 7 ) LEARNED Additional Standing Counsel, Mr. N. K. Handa strongly opposedthis writ petition and drew my attention towards the counteraffidavit filed by Mr. M. U. Siddiqui, Deputy Secretary [home], Govt of National Capital Territory ofdelhi. According to the learned Counsel in the voluntary statement made by thepetitioner/detenu recorded undersection 108 of the Customs Act the detenu hadstated that he was a student of B. A. II year in Khalsa College, Amritsar. In view ofthat it could not be belived that the petitioner was not familiar with the Englishlanguage. In the said statement he had also admitted that there was a false cavityin his suit case from which the contraband gold was recovered and this false cavitywas used by him earlier on 5. 1. 93 for exporting foreign cuirency to Dubai. According to the learned Counsel, a scrutiny of the petitioner s passport revealedthat he went abroad thrice for very short duration. Keeping in view the modusoperandi to smuggle gold coupled with frequent visits abroad and his admissionof involvement in smuggling activities earlier also, the Detaining Authority arrivedat the conclusion that the petitioner has the inclination and propensity for indulging in smuggling activities in an organised and clandestine manner and unlessprevented he is likely to indulge in the smuggling activities in future. Learnedcounsel submitted that the detention order is valid and legal. ( 8 ) COUNSEL for the respondents further submitted that the representationsreceived on behalf of the petitioner were duly dealt with and rejected. He statedthat the documents relied on by the Detaining Authority were supplied to thedetenu. There has not been any delay in passing the detention order. Learnedcounsel submitted that the detention order is valid and legal. ( 8 ) COUNSEL for the respondents further submitted that the representationsreceived on behalf of the petitioner were duly dealt with and rejected. He statedthat the documents relied on by the Detaining Authority were supplied to thedetenu. There has not been any delay in passing the detention order. He has reliedupon the decision of Rajendrakumar Natvarlal Shah v. Union of India and Others{ AIR 1988 S. C. 1255 j wherein it was held by Hon ble Supreme Court that even theunexplained delay [which was 5 months in that case] in passing the detention orderunder the COFEPOSA would not be sufficient to vitiate the order, if the groundswere not stale and the nexus between the grounds and the order of detention still existed. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel, none of the grounds taken by this detenuin this writ petition are helpful to him for quashing the detention order which islegal and valid. He also pointed out that the representation of the petitioner wasreceived on 19. 5. 93 which was examined in the branch and put up before thedetaining Authority on 25. 5. 93 and was considered and rejected by the Detainingauthority on 26. 5. 93 and served on the petitioner on 28. 5. 93. It cannot be said thatthe representation was not dealt with expeditiously and was not disposed of. ( 10 ) AS far as the delay in passing the detention order is concerned, thispetitioner was arrested on 8. 1. 93. He was released on bail by the A. S. J. on 22. 4. 93. The impugned detention order was passed on 23. 4. 93. Can the delay of about 3months in passing the detention order be said to be fatal in the present circumstances of the case ? The answer is "no". In the case of Rajendrakumar Natvarlalshah v. Union of India and Others [ supra] wherein it was held by Hon blesupreme Court that even the unexplained delay [which was 5 months in that case]in passing the detention order under the COFEPOSA would not be sufficient tovitiate the order, if the grounds were not stale and the nexus between the groundsand the order of detention still existed. ( 11 ) IN this case it has come in the statement of detenu itself recorded undersection 108 of the Customs Act, which he retracted later on as is being done in everycase, that he travelled abroad three times earlier within a gap of two months andstayed there only for one day on two occasions and for three days on third occasion. He admitted that he had brought gold earlier in the months of September andnovember. He had also admitted that the false cavity in the suit case was used byhim for exporting foreign currency to Dubai on 5. 1. 93 and the contraband goldwhich was recovered was secretly concealed in this suit case. What more isrequired for the subjective satsifaction of the Detaining Authority for passing thedetention order has not been explained by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The modus operandi to smuggle gold coupled with frequent visits abroad and hisadmission of involvement in smuggling activities earlier, the Detaining Authorityarrived at the conclusion that the petitioner has the inclination and propensity forindulging in smuggling activities in an organised and clandestine manner andunless prevented he is likely to indulge in the smuggling activities in future. ( 12 ) REGARDING the non supply of the documents and grounds of detention ingurmukhi/hindi language, it has come in the statement of this detenu undersection 108 of the Customs Act that he was a student of B. A. II year in Khalsacollege, Amritsar. In view of this fact, it cannot be said that he did not knowenglish language. Regarding the non supply of the documents, it has come in theaffidavit of Mr. M. U. Siddiqui, deputy Secretary (Home), Delhi Administration in paraxii that the detention order was passed on the material placed before the Detainingauthority and documents relied upon were supplied to the petitioner. Copy of theproposal for detention was not supplied to the petitioner as it being an interdepartmental communication, was not be supplied and the Detaining Authoritywas of the view that the supply of the proposal to the petitioner would not be inthe public interest. Even otherwise, the representations sent by this detenu wereimmediately dealt with continuously and disposed of, as is apparent from theaverments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. Therepresentation was received on 19. 5. 93 which was examined in the branch and putup before the Detaining Authority on 25. 5. Even otherwise, the representations sent by this detenu wereimmediately dealt with continuously and disposed of, as is apparent from theaverments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. Therepresentation was received on 19. 5. 93 which was examined in the branch and putup before the Detaining Authority on 25. 5. 93 and was considered and rejected bythe Detaining Authority on 26. 5. 93 and served on the detenu on 28. 5. 93. ( 13 ) EVERY case has to bejudged on its own facts and circumstances and in thepresent circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to accept the writ petition onthe grounds taken by the detenu in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissedas having no merits.