Special Leave Petition No 1900 of 1981 etc
From the Judgment and order dated 321981 of the Allahabad High Court in CMWP No 1924 of 1981
PP Rao Ambrish Kumar Mrs Rani Chhabra M Qamaruddin Mrs Qamaruddin AK Srivastava BB Tawakley Mrs Subhadra SN Singh CK Ratnaparkhi SK Gupta Uma Dutt CP Lal MK Garg and Lokesh Kumar for the Petitioners
Anil Dev Singh OP Rana BP Maheshwari Mrs section Dikshit PK Pillai R Ramachandran AK Srivastava SC Birla section Wasim A Qadri NN Sharma Shakeel Ahmad and KK Gupta for the Respondents


Summary:
The petitioner was detained by the Punjab Government pursuant to an order of detention passed under sub sections 1 and 2 of section 3 of the 
When in jail he was served with an order passed under section 31 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Act COFEPOSA directing his detention
The petitioner made a representation against his order of detention under COFEPOSA
He was produced before the Advisory Board
Pursuant to Board s recommendation his detention was revoked
He was also produced before the same Board being also the Advisory Board under the 
He did not make any representation against his detention under the  believing that his detention was only under COFEPOSA
The Board confirmed the detention order
On January 24 1986 an order passed under subsection 1 of section 12 read with section 14 A12c and d of the  as amended confirmed the aforesaid order of detention and the petitioner was directed to be continued to be detained for a period of 2 years from the date of his detention
The petitioner made a representation dated December 18 1986 through his Advocate addressed to the President of India for the revocation of his detention
On December 24 1986 the petitioner made a representation to the Government of Punjab against his detention con tending that his detention was invalid as vital facts and materials that should have influenced the minds of the declaring authority and the detaining authority had not been placed before them
Both these 457 representations were rejected on 2621987
The petitioner challenged the order of detention on various grounds including the one that there was inordinate delay in dealing with his representation to the Punjab government
It was contended that there was no justification for the undue delay in disposing of his representation which had resulted in violation of his rights under Article 225 of the Constitution and that his continued detention was not valid in law
It was contended on behalf of the respondent State that the representation was received on January 14 1987 and it was invalid as the Advocate who sent it had no authority to make it and that the delay in dealing with it was on account of the fact that it was made by a person claiming to be an Advocate of the petitioner whose authority was not checked and that the delay had caused no prejudice to the petitioner because he preferred a writ petition against his detention to the High Court which was dismissed
This Court allowed the writ petition set aside the order of detention and directed release of the petitioner
Giving reasons for its decision this Court  HELD 11 Where the liberty of a person is involved it is the duty of the State to determine his representation with utmost expedition and deal with it continuously until a final decision is taken and communicated to detenu
Failure to do so vitiates the order of detention because it infringes the fundamental right given to every citizen under Article 225 of the Constitution of India
461F G 460H In the instant case the delay in dealing with representation of the petitioner which was admittedly received by the Government on January 14 1987 and rejected as late as on February 26 1987 must be considered as inordinate delay in dealing with the representation
No explanation is given in the counter affidavit as to why the representation could not have been dealt with and disposed of earlier
Hence the order of detention is vitiated by reason of delay in dealing with his representation
462C E Saleh Mohammad vs Union of India and Harish Pahwa vs State of UP  Ors   relied on
458 12 There is nothing in law which prevents a representation being made by an Advocate on behalf of the detenu
If there was any difficulty on that account enquiry should have been made with the Advocate as to what was his authority to represent the detenu
No such enquiry has been made in the present case
Thus the fact that the representation was made by the Advocate does not explain and cannot constitute any explanation for the delay in dealing with that representation
462G H 13 No doubt the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed but Special Leave Petition against that decision is pending in this Court
Further at that time the petitioner had not made representation to the State Government at all
Hence the dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court cannot be regarded as any substitute for consideration of his representation by the State Government which unlike the Court might be entitled to go into the factual merits of the grounds forming the basis of detention order
463B C Smt
Asha Keshavrao Bhosale vs Union of India  Anr   distinguished