Judgment : T. JAYARAMA CHOUTA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER Bawa Jafar Sb Mohamed Mohideen has been detained with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods in future by exercising the power conferred by Section 3 (1) (i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. 1974 by the first respondent the Secretary to Government, Public (S. C) Department. He has filed this habeas corpus petition to issue a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ calling for the records relating to the detention order dated 4-12-1997 passed by the first respondent Made in G. O. No. SR 1/1200-4/97 Public (S. C) Department quashing the same and preventing the respondents to produce the body of the person of the detenu now detained in the Central Prison. Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. ( 2 ) WE do not deem it necessary to narrate the facts in detail, which led to passing of the impugned order of detention for this habeas corpus petition will have to be allowed on the short but vital ground of delay in considering the representations submitted on behalf of the detenu. ( 3 ) MR. Habibulla Besha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A. K. A. Thanir for the petitioner has raised two contentions, the first contention was that the alleged solitary incident will never classify a person as a hardened or habitual offender or smuggler because the detenu has not committed any unlawful acts consistently, continuously and persistently or indulged in any manner prejudicial to the conservation or augmentation of foreign exchange: We heard on this point the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. We are not impressed by the contention raised by the learned senior counsel, in view of the number of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, wherein the Supreme Court has held on the basis of solitary incident, the order of detention could be passed. Hence, this contention which has no force will have to be rejected. ( 4 ) THE second submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner was that there was delay in considering and disposing of the representation submitted on behalf of the detenu on 27-12- 1997, which was disposed of only on 1-3-1998 which was communicated to the detenu on 4-3-1998. ( 4 ) THE second submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner was that there was delay in considering and disposing of the representation submitted on behalf of the detenu on 27-12- 1997, which was disposed of only on 1-3-1998 which was communicated to the detenu on 4-3-1998. According to the learned senior counsel, the said representation was disposed of after an undue delay of 66 days. In this connection, learned senior counsel invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Harish Pahwa v. State of U. P. and Ors. In the said case, this is what the Apex Court has observed: In order to decide the point we may refer to certain admitted facts. The order of detention is dated 16th May, 1980 and the representation made by the appellant against it from Varanasi Jail bears date the 3rd June, 1980. The State Government received the representation on the 4th June, 1980 but for two days no action was taken in connection with it. On the 6th of June, 1980 comments were called for from the Customs Authorities with regard to the allegations made in the representation and such comments were received by the State Government on the 13th June, 1980. On the 17th June, 1980 the State Government referred the representation to its Law Department for its opinion which was furnished on the 19th of June, 1980. The rejection of the representation was ordered on the 24th of June, 1980 and it was communicated to the jail authorities two days later. In paragraph 5, it is further observe as follows: In our opinion, the manner in which the representation made by the appellant has been dealt with reveals a sorry state of affairs in the matter of representations made by persons detained without trial. There is no explanation at all as to why no action was taken in reference to the representation on 4th, 5th and 25th of June, 1980. It is also not clear what consideration was given by the Government to the representation from 13th June, 1980 to June, 1980 when we find that it culminated only in a reference to the Law Department, nor it is apparent why the Law Department had to be consulted at all. It is also not clear what consideration was given by the Government to the representation from 13th June, 1980 to June, 1980 when we find that it culminated only in a reference to the Law Department, nor it is apparent why the Law Department had to be consulted at all. Again we fail to understand why the representation had to travel from table to table for six days before reaching the Chief Minister who was the only authority to decide the representation. We may make it clear as we have done on numerous earlier occasions that this Court does not look with eqanimity upon such delays when the liberty of a person is concerned. Calling comments from other departments seeking the opinion of Secretary after Secretary and allowing the representation to lie without being attended to is not the type of action which the State is expected to take in a matter of such vital import. We would emphasise that it is the duty of the State to proceed to determine representations of the character above mentioned with the utmost expedition, which means that the matter must be taken up for consideration as soon as, such a representation received and dealt with continuously (unless it is absolutely necessary to wait for Some assistance in connection with it) until a final decision is taken and communicated to the detenu. This not having been done in the present case we have no option but to declare the detention unconstitutional. ( 5 ) LEARNED senior counsel also invited our attention to another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh v. District Magistrate, Ahmedabad and others. In paragraphs 18 to 21 the Apex Court observed as follows:"18. Turning now to the main question relating to the early disposal of the representation, we may immediately observe that this Court, in a large number of cases, has already laid down the principle in clear and specific terms that the representation has to be disposed of at the earliest and if there has been any delay in the disposal of the representation, the reasons for the delay must be indicated to the Court or else the unexplained delay or unsatisfactory explanation in the disposal of the representation would fatally affect the order of detention, and in that situation, continued detention would become bad. This has been the consistent view of this Court all along from its decision in Sk. Abdul Karim v. State of W. B. (1969) I SCC 433. Durga Show In Re, 1 (1970) 3 SCC 696 , Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of W. B. , (1970) I SCC 219: 1970 SCC (Cri) 92, Sk. Hanif v. State of W. B. (1974) I SCC 637: 1964 SCC (Cri) 292, Raisuddin v. State of U. P. (1983) 4 SCC 537 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 16, Frances Coralie Mullin v. W. C. Khambra, (1980) 2 SCC 275 : 1980 SCC (Cr1.) 419. Mohinuddin v. Distt. Magistrate, (1987) 4 SCC 58 : 1987 SCC (Cr1.) 674, Bawa Jafar v. Government of Tamilnadu rep. by the Secretary and Ors. Rama Dhondu Borade v. V. K. Saraj, Comr. of Police, (1989) 3 SCC 173 : 1989 SCC (Cr1) 520, Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik v. Union of India, (1989) 3 SCC 277 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 554, Mahesh Kumar Chauhan v. union of India, (1990) 3 SCC 499: 1991 SCC (Cr1) 24, right up to its reiteration in Gazi Khan v. State of Rajasthan, (1990) 3 SCC 459 : 1991 SCC (Cr1) 24. 19. Almost all these decisions were again considered in State of T. N. v. C. Subramani (1992) 4 SCC 495 : 1993 SCC (Cr1) 28: JT (1992) 5 SC 318, and the above view was reiterated, which was repeated again in K. M. Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India. (1991) 1 SCC 476 : 1991 SCC (Cr1.) 613 and Julia Jose Mavely v. Union of India, (1993) Supp (1) SCC 428: 1993 SCC (Cr1) 234: 1992 Cr1. L. J. 109. 20. In Mohinuddin. (1987) 4 SCC 58 : 1987 SCC (Cr1) 674 and Rama Dhondu, (1989) 3 SCC 173 : 1989 SCC (Cr1) 520 cases, it was provided that inordinate and unexplained delay in the disposal of representation would make the continued detention of a person illegal and unconstitutional. In Devi Lal Mahto v. State of Bihar, (1982) 3 SCC 328 : 1983 sec (Cr1) 37: AIR 1982 SC 1548 , the continued detention was held to have become bad on account of the indifferent attitude of the Government in not attending to the representation for above 10 days. 21. In Devi Lal Mahto v. State of Bihar, (1982) 3 SCC 328 : 1983 sec (Cr1) 37: AIR 1982 SC 1548 , the continued detention was held to have become bad on account of the indifferent attitude of the Government in not attending to the representation for above 10 days. 21. In spite of law laid down above by this Court repeatedly over the past three decades, the Executive, namely, the State Government and its officers continue to behave in their old, lethargic fashion and like all other files rusting in the Secretariate for various reasons including red-tapism, the representation made by a person deprived of his liberty, continue to be dealt within the same fashion. The Government and its officers will not give up their habit of maintaining a consistent attitude of lethargy. So also, this Court will not hesitate in quashing the order of detention to restore the liberty and freedom to the person whose detention is allowed to become bad by the Government itself on account of his representation not being disposed of at the earliest. " ( 6 ) ON this point, we heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who represented respondents 1 and 3. He has invited our attention to the counter affidavit sworn to by one M. F. Farooqui, the Secretary to Government, Public (SC) Department, in which in paragraph 39, he has explained how the said representation has been disposed of. The deponent has stated that the representation sent by one Smt. Kursheed Beevi was received by the Government on 31-12-1997, and the Government called for Parawar remarks on 2-1-1998 and the Parawar remarks were prepared on 16-1-1998 which were despatched to the State Government on 19-1-1998. The State Government, after receiving the said Parawar remarks. on 20-1-1998 put up the file before the under Secretary on 22-1-1998 which was sent to the Public Department on the same day and the file was returned by the Public Department on 27-1-1998 and after the file was returned, some clarifications were sought for from the Customs Department on 28-1-1998 and the Customs Department furnished the clarifications only on 19-2-1998 which received by the Government on 20-2-1998 after sending the file through the appropriate Department. Ultimately, the said representation came to be disposed by the Minister of Law on 1-3-1998. Ultimately, the said representation came to be disposed by the Minister of Law on 1-3-1998. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that in between 31-12-1997 i. e. , on the date on, which the representation was received by the Government till some clarification was sought from the Customs Department on 28-1-1998, there was no delay in considering those papers 19 holidays intervened during that period. Hence, the Court has to hold that there was no delay during that period. As far as the period from 28-1-1998 on which date the clarification was sought from the Customs Department and submitting of the report from the Customs Department on 19-2-1998, the delay was on the part of the Customs Department to forward the clarification sought for by the Government and during that period also the Government, was taking necessary steps by contacting over phone and writing letters to the Customs Department to send the clarification and hence. It cannot be said that the Government has delayed in disposing of the representation submitted on behalf of the detenu. From the narration of above facts, it is quite clear even though there was no much of delay between the period 31-12-1997 i. e. , on the date of representation received by the Government till the Government sought for clarification from the Customs Department on 28-1-1998, the delay from 28-1-1998 to 19-2-1998 remained unexplained. It is not a small delay. The delay is 22 days. The Customs Department cannot simply keep the file pending without attending and getting the clarification sought for by the Government. In fact, in the affidavit itself, it has been mentioned that the Government was contacting the Customs Department over phone to send the clarification, but no action seems to have been taken. Keeping in view the, urgency of the matter, the Customs Department has taken its own time while forwarding the clarification sought for by the Government. The two decisions referred above will cover the case of this nature. The Customs Department cannot keep the file without being attended. The Customs Department has not explained why the clarification sought for by the Government was not furnished to the Government with a reasonable time. The Customs Department has acted in a lethargic fashion without keeping in mind that the personss liberty has been deprived of. The Customs Department cannot keep the file without being attended. The Customs Department has not explained why the clarification sought for by the Government was not furnished to the Government with a reasonable time. The Customs Department has acted in a lethargic fashion without keeping in mind that the personss liberty has been deprived of. ( 7 ) LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor, however, pointed out before us that it was only a second representation forwarded on behalf of the detenu and the first representation submitted by one Jamal Mohammed, the father-in-law of the detenu on 8-12-1997, which was received by the Government on 10-12-1997 has been disposed of without undue delay on 6-1-1998. The learned senior counsel has pointed out that the detenu has no father-in-law by name Jamal Mohammed and he was not aware of any representation submitted by the said Jamal Mohammed on behalf of the detenu. In fact, he has invited our attention to the communication received from the Government regarding the disposal of the said representation submitted by Jamal Mohammed on behalf of the detenu, and the reply forwarded by the detenu in this connection wherein he has clearly stated that the said Jamal Mohammed was not his father-in-law and he does not know Jamal Mohammed and he is not instructed anybody to forward any representation on his behalf. He has also taken us through the said representation of Jamal Mohammed, where, nothing has been mentioned in the said representation except saying that the detenu has, been illegally detained and he should be set at liberty. In the representation forwarded by Smt. Kursheed Beevi, the mother-in-law of the detenu on 27-12-1997, she has mentioned all the details and asked for copies of the documents. The said representation runs to 27 pages. Hence, we have to hold that the representation forwarded by Smt. Kursheed Beevi is the first representation and the said representation has not been disposed of with a sense of urgency and promptitude. Every representation submitted on behalf of the detenu has to be considered and disposed of without undue delay. In the present case, the said representation has been disposed of after 66 days, which will be sufficient to hold in favour of the detenu. Every representation submitted on behalf of the detenu has to be considered and disposed of without undue delay. In the present case, the said representation has been disposed of after 66 days, which will be sufficient to hold in favour of the detenu. ( 8 ) HENCE, for the reasons stated above, we allow this habeas corpus petition, set aside the order of detention and direct that the detenu should be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is otherwise required. Petition allowed.