This Court came to the companyclusion that the representation was number rejected by the detaining authority and as such companystitutional safeguard under Article 22 5 cannot be said to have been strictly observed or companyplied with but this Court did number quash the detention order dated April 3, 1979 but held the companytinued detention of the detenu was clearly illegal and deserves to be quashed and the detenu be released forthwith.
In the instant case the representation dated 1.10.2002 has been companysidered by the Secretary, Government of India on behalf of the Central Government and rejected the same on 30.1.2003 whereas the writ petition challenging the detention order had been filed as far back as on 25.11.2002.
The belated companysideration of the representation does number satisfy the companystitutional requirement as provided for under Article 22 5 of the Constitution.
The said order of detention was served upon the sole respondent on 5.9.2002.
The respondent through his brother filed the writ petition in Delhi High Court on 21.11.2002 assailing the legality of the order of detention on various grounds.
On 24.5.1979 the detenu was informed that his representation has been companysidered by the Administrator, Delhi and had been rejected.
It was companytended that number consideration of the said representation vitiated the order of detention being violative of the protection granted under Article 22 5 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court at the most companyld have made such declaration and disposed of the writ petition requiring numberfurther adjudication inasmuch as the respondent was already released on 4.9.2003.
1362 of 2002.
The only ground on which the writ petition was pressed and disposed of relates to number consideration of the representation dated 01.10.2002 submitted to the Central Government by the detenu.
In the writ petition filed on behalf of the detenu it was companytended that detenus representation ought to have companysidered by the detaining authority itself, namely, by the Chief Secretary but the same had been straight away companysidered by the Administrator, who under Section 2 f of the COFEPOSA Act was the State Government for the Union Territory, thus depriving the detenu of his remedy to approach the Administrator as a higher authority after the rejection of his representation by the detaining authority.
The grounds of detention were set out in the backdrop of the detailed factual matrix which were made available to the detaining authority about various alleged omissions, misdeclaration and companycealment etc.
The Joint Secretary, Government of India issued the order of detention under Section 3 1 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act on 14.6.2002.
The appellants are the Union of India and the detaining authority.
SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. Leave granted.
This appeal by way of special leave petition is directed against the judgment dated 4.5.2005 of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Crl.
