Mukul Mudgal, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition challenges the detention of the petitioner under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The incident involved the recovery of Foreign and Indian Currency equivalent to Indain Rs. 7,97,615. 00 (Rupees seven lacs ninty seven thousand six hundred and fifteen only, from the search of the suit case of the petitioner. ( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds in support of the writ petition but has confined herself to the ground of delay in dealing with the representation of the petitioner. ( 3 ) DURING the course of hearing the Union of India was given an opportunity to file an additional affidavit to explain in detail the reasons for delay in disposing of the representation of the petitioner. Accordingly the respondents filed the additional affidavit on 30/11/1998 in which in paragraph 4 the following explanation for the delay, that we are concerned with, has been furnished : "that detenu s representation dated 24/8/1998 addressed to the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue was forwarded by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi vide his letter 25/8/1998 and received in COFEPOSA Unit on the same date. The said representation was sent to the sponsoring authority on 26/8/1998 with a request to furnish comments thereon. When the comments were not received from the sponsoring authority a reminder was sent on 9/9/1998. On receipt of the reminder dated 9/9/1998 the sponsoring authority contacted the COFEPOSA Unit telephonically on 15/9/1998 and informed that Ministry s original letter dated 26/8/1998 was not received by them. Accordingly a copy of Ministry s letter dated 26/8/1998 and detenu s representation dated 24/8/1998, were faxed to the detaining authority on 15/8/1998. The sponsoring authority furnished comments vide letter dated 16/8/1998 which was received in COFEPOSA Unit on 17/9/1998. The case file alongwith comments of the sponsoring authority was submitted to the Under Secretary concerned on 17/9/1998. The Under Secretary examined and processed the representation and submitted the case file to Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) on 17/9/1998 JS (COFEPOSA) submitted the case file to Secretary (Revenue) on 17/9/1998. The Secretary (Revenue) considered and rejected the representation on 18/9/1998 and the detenu was informed about the rejection of his representation dated 24/8/1998 vide Memo dated 18/9/1998 itself. The Under Secretary examined and processed the representation and submitted the case file to Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) on 17/9/1998 JS (COFEPOSA) submitted the case file to Secretary (Revenue) on 17/9/1998. The Secretary (Revenue) considered and rejected the representation on 18/9/1998 and the detenu was informed about the rejection of his representation dated 24/8/1998 vide Memo dated 18/9/1998 itself. In between 29/8/1998 - 30/8/1998, 5/9/1998 - 6/9/1998 and 12/9/1998 - 13/9/1998 were closed holidays being Saturdays and Sundays respectively. As such it is respectfully submitted that there has been no delay leave alone unreasonable delay in the consideration of the said representation. " ( 4 ) APART from the explanation due to the holidays occasioning the delay it is clear that for the period starting from 26/8/1998 and ending on 15/8/1998 there is no valid explanation for the delay in disposing of the representation of the petitioner. Insofar as the delay said to be occasioned by the holidays is concerned, it is not tenable as these were not sudden or unexpected holidays but are holidays which are announced at the beginning of the year and the concerned authority is required to take into account these situations so as to act in advance of and in anticipation of such holidays to avoid delay, particularly so, in cases involving the liberty of a detenu under preventive detention. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment of this Court in Jitender Kumar Aggarwal vs. Union of India and Ors. , reported as 1998 (1) JCC (Delhi) 205. The extracts of the relevant portion dealing with the delay are reproduced herein below : "the question with regard to the disposal of a representation came up before different High Courts and the Hon ble Supreme Court, time and again, and it is a subject-matter of different decisions rendered by the Hon ble Supreme Court and different High Courts. Before proceedings any further in the matter I would like to illustrate my view with the help of certain authorities. It was observed in Rama Dhondu Borade v. V. K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police and Others, JT 1989 (2) SCC 579, ". . . . " True, there is no prescribed period either under the provisions of the Constitution or under the concerned detention law within which the representation should be dealt with. It was observed in Rama Dhondu Borade v. V. K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police and Others, JT 1989 (2) SCC 579, ". . . . " True, there is no prescribed period either under the provisions of the Constitution or under the concerned detention law within which the representation should be dealt with. The use of the word "as soon as may be occurring in Article 22 (5) of the Constitution reflects that the representation should be expeditiously considered and disposed of with due promptitude and diligence and with a sense of urgency and without avoidable delay. What is reasonable dispatch depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in that regard. However, in case the gap between the receipt of the representation and its consideration by the authority is so unreasonably long and explanation offered by the authority is so unsatisfactory, such delay could vitiate the order of detention. " ( 6 ) IT is pertinent to note that Hon ble Supreme Court in Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh v. Distt. Magistrate, Ahmedabad and Ors. Rameshchandra Somchand Shah v. Distt. Magistrate, Surat and Ors. , reported as JT 1996 (2) SC 532 , the Hon ble Supreme Court had commented adversely even upon the delay of 6 days in taking up the representation of a detenu for consideration. ( 7 ) IN view of the foregoing discussions and circumstances mentioned above, the petitioner is entitled to succeed on the short ground of unexplained delay in dealing with the petitioner s representation. The petition is allowed. The detention order dated 27/5/1998 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner be set at liberty forthwith in case he is not required to be detained in any other case and under any other order. PETITION allowed.