Y. K. Sabharwal, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has been ordered to be detained in terms of order dated 8th November, 1996 issued in the name of Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities, 1974 (for short the Act ) with a view to preventing her from smuggling goods and has been ordered to be kept in custody in the Central Jail, Tihar , New Delhi. A Declaration dated 11th December, 1996 under Section 9 (1) of the Act has also been made in terms of the order made by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India. The petitioner seeks in this petition setting aside of the detention order and for being set at liberty forthwith. ( 2 ) THE detention order was passed while the petitioner was already in custody. According to the petitioner the order of detention, grounds of detention and the documents were supplied to her only on 8th January, 1997 after the Advisory Board s direction dated 6th January, 1997. According to detaining authority, however, the order of detention, grounds of detention and the documents were given to the petitioner but she refused to accept the same as is evident from the Punchnama dated 14th November, 1996 regarding refusal. ( 3 ) THE facts and circumstances , on the basis of which the Lt. Governor arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner had indulged in smuggling goods and has the propensity for indulging in smuggling activities in an organised and clandestine manner and with a view to preventing her from smuggling goods, it is necessary to detain her, have been noticed in detail in the grounds on which the order of detention dated 8th November, 1996 was made. For the present purposes, it is not necessary to noticed herein the said facts in detail. Suffice it to state that the petitioner was apprehended at Indira Gandhi International Airport on 26th August, 1996 at the exit gate of custom arrival and her search resulted in recovery of huge quantity of gold concealed in specially made cloth belt tied around her waist and concealed under the garments. The Advisory Board came to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for the continued detention of the petitioner. By order dated 3rd February, 1997, made in the name of Lt. The Advisory Board came to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for the continued detention of the petitioner. By order dated 3rd February, 1997, made in the name of Lt. Governor in exercise of powers under Section 8 (f) read with Section 9 (2) of the Act, the detention order was confirmed and it was directed that under Section 10 of the Act the petitioner be detained for a period of one year from the date of her detention i. e. 9th November, 1996. ( 4 ) IN support of the petition, three contentions urged by Mr. Moorjani, learned Counsel for the petitioner are: (1) Non - consideration by the detaining authority of representation dated 7th January, 1997 of the petitioner. (2) Not informing the petitioner that she has a right to make representation against the order of confirmation dated 3rd February, 1997, and (3) Inordinate delay in supply of order of detention, grounds of detention and documents to the petitioner. ( 5 ) FIRST CONTENTION : The representation of the petitioner dated 7th January, 1997 inter alia, stating that the detention order dated 8th November, 1996 and declaration dated 11th December, 1996 deserve to be revoked is addressed to the Secretary (Central Government), Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi. By Memorandum dated 7th February, 1997 the Government of India informed the petitioner about rejection of this representation. The representation dated 7th January, 1997 was admittedly not sent to the detaining authority. ( 6 ) THE contention strenuously urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that it was obligatory for the Central Government to send this representation to the detaining authority as there is a constitutional obligation on the detaining authority to consider the representation and the admitted non-consideration of it by the detaining authority has resulted in violation of petitioner s valuable constitutional right enshrined in Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed by learned Counsel upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Gracy v. State of Kerala and Another, (1991) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1. The detention order in Gracy s case was made by the Central Government and the representation was addressed by the detenue to the Advisory Board. The said representation was not considered by the Central Government as the detaining authority. The detention order in Gracy s case was made by the Central Government and the representation was addressed by the detenue to the Advisory Board. The said representation was not considered by the Central Government as the detaining authority. On these facts, in Gracy s case, the Supreme Court rejected the contention urged on behalf of the Government that it had no constitutional obligation under Article 22 (5) to consider the representation made by the detenue to the Advisory Board. In the present case, however, the representation is not addressed to the State Advisory Board. It is addressed only to the Secretary Revenue , Government of India. It has been considered by the Central Government. The Central Government has the power to revoke an order of detention made by the State Government. The Supreme Court has not held in Gracy s case that a representation neither addressed to the detaining authority nor to the Advisory Board is required to be considered by the detaining authority on account of obligation cast on detaining authority under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. In the present case representation was made to Central Government. It had independent obligation to consider it under Section 11 of the Act and it has considered and rejected it. In our view no obligation was cast upon the Central Government to send the representation to the State Government and there was no obligation on the State Government as detaining authority to consider the representation in question which prays the Central Government for revocation of detention. In our opinion the Gracy s case is not relevant to the contention in issue. ( 7 ) RELIANCE has also been placed upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Shakil Ahmed Ansari v. Union of India, 1996 (38) DRJ (DB) 385. In this case the detention order was passed by specially empowered officer, namely a Joint Secretary, Government of India under Section 3 (1) of the Act and the representation made by the detenue to the Advisory Board was not considered by the detaining authority and the question that came up for consideration before the Bench was whether detaining authority was required to consider the representation of the detenue addressed to the Advisory Board. The Division Bench after considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India and Others, JT 1995 (3) S. C. 639 held that the detenu has a right to make a representation against the order of his detention to the Advisory Board, the empowered officer ( the detaining authority) and the Central Government or the State Goverent, as the case may be, and the said authorities are under an obligation to decide the same. There can be no doubt that the function of the empowered officer/the detaining authority does not come to an end after the making of the order of detention and the detaining authority is required to consider the representation of the detenu even though it may have been addressed to the Advisory Board. In Shakil Ahmed Ansari s case it was also observed that the contents of Article 22 (5) as well as the nature of duty imposed thereby on the detaining authority support the view that so long as there is a representation made by the detenue an obligation is cast upon both on the detaining authority as also on the Advisory Board to consider the same independently. There can be no quarrel with the aforesaid views but like Gracy s case, which was also noticed by the Bench the point under consideration in Shakil Ahmed s too was different, namely, the obligation of the detaining authority to consider the representation of a detenu which may be addressed to the Advisory Board, the mode of address being only a matter of form which cannot whittle down the requirement of constitutional mandate in Article 22 (5) enacted as one of the safeguards provided to the detenu in case of preventive detention. The observation in Para 10 of Shakil Ahmed s case have to be appreciated in the light of the fact of the said case. The present case is however, not of a representation addressed to the Advisory Board. The observation in Para 10 of Shakil Ahmed s case have to be appreciated in the light of the fact of the said case. The present case is however, not of a representation addressed to the Advisory Board. It is a case of representation addressed to the Secretary (Revenue), Government of India and the same has been decided by the Government of India, Shakil Ahmed Ansari s case also does not lay down that representation addressed to the Central Government when the order of detention has been passed by the State Government is required to be forwarded by the Central Government to the State Government and is required to be decided by the State Government as the detaining authority. Similarly the decision of Full Bench of this court in the case of Akhilesh Kumar Tyagi v. Union of India and Others, 1995 (35) DRJ (FB) has also no applicability to the present case. In our view there has been no violation of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution and the contention deserves to be rejected. ( 8 ) SECOND CONTENTION ( 9 ) IT is now well settled that the detenu is required to be informed that he has a right to make representation to various authorities seeking revocation of the order of detention. The detenue is also required to be informed of right to make representation even in respect of declaration made under Section 9 (1) of the Act. In present case in the grounds of detention dated 8th November, 1996 the information about such a right was given to the detenu in the following words: @subpara = "you have a right to make representation to the Lt. Governor (Detaining Authority), Central Government and Advisory Board. If you wish to make representation against your detention to the Lt. Governor the National Capital Territory of Delhi and/or to the Central Government, you may do so, address it to the Lt. Governor, National Capital Territory of Delhi, Raj Niwas, Delhi and /or the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, 6th Floor,"b" Wing, Janpath Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi - 110001, as the case may be and forward the same through the Superintendent Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. Governor, National Capital Territory of Delhi, Raj Niwas, Delhi and /or the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, 6th Floor,"b" Wing, Janpath Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi - 110001, as the case may be and forward the same through the Superintendent Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. IF you desire to make any representation to the Advisory Board, you may address it to the Chairman, Advisory Board, COFEPOSA State, High Court of Delhi, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi and forward the same through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. You are further informed that you shall be heard by the Advisory Board in due course, if the Board considers it essential to do so or if you so desire. " ( 10 ) THE detenue was also informed in the declaration under Section 9 (1) of the Act that she has a right to make a representation to the detaining authority, Central Government as well as to the Chairman, State Advisory Board (COFEPOSA ). ( 11 ) MR. Moorjani submits that the petitioner ought to have also been informed that she has a right to make a representation against the order of confirmation and admittedly this was not done and thus the petitioner has been deprived of her valuable right under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. As already noticed the petitioner was informed by order dated 3rd February, 1997, that the Advisory Board is of the opinion that there is sufficient cause for her continued detention and the Lt. Governor in exercise of powers conferred by Section 8 (f) read with Section 9 (2) confirms the detention order and directs under Section 10 of the Act that the petitioner be detained for a period of one year from the date of detention i. e. 8th November, 1996. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner was required to be informed that she has also a right to make representation against the order dated 3rd February, 1997 as contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 12 ) THE power to make order of detention is contained in Section 3 of the Act. The maximum period for which a person can be detained has been provided for in Section 10 of the Act. ( 12 ) THE power to make order of detention is contained in Section 3 of the Act. The maximum period for which a person can be detained has been provided for in Section 10 of the Act. Section 10, inter alia, provides that the maximum period of detention where Section 9 is not applicable and where detention has been confirmed under Clause (f) of Section 8 shall be a period of one year from the date of detention and the maximum period of detention where Section 9 applies and which has been confirmed under Clause (f) of Section 8 read Sub-section 2 of Section 9 shall be a period of two years from the date of detention. The confirmation provision is contained in Section 8 (f) of the Act, which reads as under : "in every case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion sufficient cause (for the detention) of a person, the appropriate Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit and in every case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion no sufficient cause (for the detention) of the person concerned, the appropriate Government shall revoke the detention order and cause the person to be released forthwith". ( 13 ) A person cannot be detained for a period longer than three months unless before the expiration of the period of three months an opinion is received from the Advisory Board that there is sufficient cause for such detention. The cases in which and circumstances under which persons may be detained for a period longer than three months but not exceeding six months from the date of detention without obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board are provided in Section 9 of the Act. A person cannot be detained under the Act for a period exceeding three months without the opinion of the Advisory Board and upto one year where Advisory Board opines existence of sufficient cause for detention in case to which Section 9 is not applicable. A person cannot be detained under the Act for a period exceeding three months without the opinion of the Advisory Board and upto one year where Advisory Board opines existence of sufficient cause for detention in case to which Section 9 is not applicable. The cases to which Section 9 is applicable, the detention without opinion of the Advisory Board can be for a period upto six months and with the opinion of the Advisory Board about the existence of sufficient cause, the detention can be upto a period of two years. ( 14 ) A detenu in respect of whom a declaration is made under Section 9 (1) of the Act, is also required to be informed that he has a right to make representation against such a declaration. The declaring authority comes into picture on the making of declaration under Section 9 of the Act. Unlike the declaring authority, no new authority comes into existence on an order of confirmation under Section 8 (f) of that Act being made. Thus, the authority to whom representation may be made remain the same. Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India stipulates the right of a detenu to make a representation against the detention. The petitioner was informed of this right. A detenu can make any number of representation against his detention and continued detention. As already noticed the petitioner was also informed about her right to make representation to the declaring authority as stated in the declaration dated 11th December, 1996. The order of confirmation under Section 8 (f) cannot be held to be a fresh order of detention. It continues the detention already made. No fresh grounds are taken into consideration while making an order to confirmation under Section 8 (f ). Only the original order of detention is confirmed. Article 22 (5) does not stipulate any fresh information to be given to a detenu about right to make representation on making of order of confirmation under Section 8 (f) of the Act. ( 15 ) IN view of the above, we are of the view that the respondents were under no obligation to inform the petitioner that she had a right to make representation on making of an order of confirmation under Section 8 (f) of the Act. Therefore, this contention is also rejected. ( 15 ) IN view of the above, we are of the view that the respondents were under no obligation to inform the petitioner that she had a right to make representation on making of an order of confirmation under Section 8 (f) of the Act. Therefore, this contention is also rejected. ( 16 ) THIRD CONTENTION : Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the purposes of this contention he would assume as correct, as recorded in the Punchnama, that the petitioner had refused to receive the detention order, grounds of detention and the documents on 14th November, 1996. Counsel, however, points out that the petitioner had filed in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi an application dated 9th November 1996, inter alia, seeking a direction against the Customs Department to supply to her the relevant documents including the order of detention, grounds of detention as also the documents and that the said application was put up before the learned Court on 11th December, 1996. The contention is that inspite of this application the aforesaid documents were not supplied on 11th December, 1996 and, therefore, valuable right of the petitioner to make an effective and early representation under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India was violated because no representation could be made without a copy of the detention order, grounds of detention and the documents. From the material on record, it appears that a copy of the application dated 9th December, 1996 was given to the Custom Department on 11th December, 1996 and the learned Court had fixed the case for reply and arguments on the said application for 3rd January, 1997. There is nothing on record to show as to what orders were made on 3rd January, 1997. Further it appears that on request of Counsel for the detenue the Advisory Board directed supply of detention order, grounds of detention and the documents to the Counsel for the detenue which were supplied on 8th January, 1997. When, on the facts and circumstances of the case, what is stated in the Punchnama regarding refusal to receive the documents has been assumed as correct, we do not think that immediately on receipt of application dated 9th December, 1996 any obligation was cast upon the detaining authority to supply these documents. When, on the facts and circumstances of the case, what is stated in the Punchnama regarding refusal to receive the documents has been assumed as correct, we do not think that immediately on receipt of application dated 9th December, 1996 any obligation was cast upon the detaining authority to supply these documents. It was not the stand of the petitioner in the application dated 9th December, 1996 that without prejudice to her stand that she had not refused to receive the documents, the documents be supplied to her at that stage. Had it been so and if still documents were not supplied , the position may have been different. When the application dated 9th December, 1996 was filed before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate the petitioner did not accept as correct the fact of documents having been tendered to her or that she had refused to receive the same as recorded in Punchnama dated 14th November, 1996. It has not been contended that any direction was given by the Court to supply the documents to the petitioner on 11th December, 1996 or 3rd January, 1997. Admittedly, on directions of the Advisory Board the documents were forthwith supplied on 8th January, 1997. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to accept the contention that on account of non-supply of the documents to the petitioner on 11th December, 1996 her right to make an effective representation was violated. The third contention is also without any merit. ( 17 ) FOR the aforesaid reason, we find no substance in the petition. It is accordingly, dismissed.