( 1 ) THIS writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenges the order of detention passed under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities act, 1974 whereby the petitioner was detained for preventing him from carrying on smuggling activities set out in the grounds in support of the order of detention dated 29/4/1999. ( 2 ) ONE of the grounds on which the detention order is challenged is that the representation made by the wife of the detenu to the central government has not been disposed of till date. The receipt of the representation dated 7/6/1999 was denied on behalf of the central government. Consequently, this court passed the following order on 17/11/1999: "learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is allowed one weeks time to file an additional affidavit annexing therewith the document indicating that the representation sent by the wife of the detenu to the secretary in the central government was duly received by the addressee (the secretary ). The respondents shall have a weeks time thereafter to file the replies. List after three weeks on a non-miscellaneous day. " ( 3 ) AN additional affidavit has been filed by the wife of the petitioner in which it is inter alia stated as under: " (4) I submit that I have sent the representation dated 7/6/1999 as instructed by my husband for his release to the secretary to the central government, ministry of Finance, Janpath Bhavan, 6th floor, b Wing, New Delhi by Speed post along with Proof of Delivery Card, on 8/6/1999 from Egmore Post Office, chennai-8, Tamil Nadu under Receipt n0. 0486, dated 8/6/1999. (5) I submit that my representation dated 7/6/1999 sent on 8/6/1999 by speed Post was received by the secretary to the government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, Janpath bhavan, 6th floor, b Wing, New Delhi- 110001 on 9/6/1999. Further Speed post Centre, Chennai have certified that the Speed Post was delivered to the addressee on 9/6/1999. True xerox copy of Speed Post Receipt No. 0486 dated 8-6-99 issued by the Egmore post Office and the xerox copy of the proof of Delivery Card and the Communication received from the Postal Authorities are filed herewith as Annexure -P3 (Colly. ). True xerox copy of Speed Post Receipt No. 0486 dated 8-6-99 issued by the Egmore post Office and the xerox copy of the proof of Delivery Card and the Communication received from the Postal Authorities are filed herewith as Annexure -P3 (Colly. ). From the above it is evident that the representation dated 7/6/199999 was sent by me on 8-6-99 to the secretary to the government of India, ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, new Delhi- 110001 on 9/6/1999. Therefore, the denial of the receipt of the representation dated 7-6-99 is totally incorrect and wrong. " ( 4 ) THE relevant documents, namely, the consumer Receipt indicating that the representation was sent on 8/6/1999 by speed Post, the letter dated 20/7/1999 from Deputy Manager (Customer Services), speed Post Centre, Madras saying that the Speed Post Item No. 0486 dated 8/6/1999 was delivered to the addressee on 9/6/1999 as also the delivery card has been filed with this affidavit. In the additional counter affidavit on behalf of Union of India, it is stated as follows: "4. That in reply to the averments made in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the additional affidavit filed in Writ Petition (Cri.) No. 193 of 1999, it is submitted that the purported representation dated 07/06/1999 said to be addressed to the central government has not been received in the central Registry of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, hence the said representation was not received in the cofeposa Unit of the Ministry. No other representation has also been received by the central government till date. " ( 5 ) IT will be seen that the initial denial about the receipt of representation is maintained even in the additional affidavit dated 1/12/1999. ( 6 ) IT was mentioned in the grounds of detention that if the petitioner wished to make a representation against the order of detention, he could address it to the secretary to government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue [cofeposa SECTION], central Economic intelligence Bureau, B-Wing, 6th floor, Janpath Bhavan, Janpathi, New delhi-110001. The representation dated 7/6/1999 is addressed to the secretary to the central government, Ministry of Finance, janpath Bhavan, 6th Floor, b wing, New Delhi. The representation dated 7/6/1999 is addressed to the secretary to the central government, Ministry of Finance, janpath Bhavan, 6th Floor, b wing, New Delhi. Since the representation was sent and that too by Speed Post, to the secretary to government of India on the address set out in the grounds of detention, a presumption arises that the representation was received by the addressee, particularly, when the postal authorities have themselves verified by their communication dated 20/7/1999 that the speed post letter was delivered to the addressee on 9/6/1999. ( 7 ) APART from section 114 of the Indian evidence Act under which a presumption would arise in respect of letters sent by registered post that they were delivered to the addressee if the address was correct, a presumption will also arise under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which provides as under: "27. Meaning of service by post.-Where any central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression "serve" or either of the expression "give" or "send" or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post". ( 8 ) IN the face of the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, which is supported by necessary documents as also the provisions of Section 27 of the general Clauses Act set out above, a bare denial in the additional counter affidavit filed by Union of India cannot be accepted. ( 9 ) THAT being so, since the representation sent on behalf of the petitioner has not been disposed of by the government of India till date which results in the violation of the right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution, the continued detention of the petitioner has become bad. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 29/4/1999 is set aside with the direction that the petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with some other case. .