S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed by the detenu, Mahesh Kumar Chauhan Banti questioning the correctness of the judgment made in Criminal Writ Petition No. 657/89 by the High Court of Delhi dismissing the petition as devoid of any merit. The above Writ Petition out of which this present appeal has arisen was filed by the appellant, Mahesh Kumar Chauhan against the order of detention dated 13.7.1989 clamped upon him by the first respondent, Union of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to preventing the detenu from engaging in transporting and concealing smuggled goods and dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in keeping smuggled goods.

3. The entire facts of the case are well set out in the grounds of detention and, therefore, we think that it is not necessary to reiterate the same.

4. Mr. Harjinder Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant raised a variety of contentions, one of which being that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in considering and disposing of the representation of the detenu dated 18.8.89 and as such the continued detention of the appellant is impermissible and unconstitutional as being violative of the mandatory provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent before the High Court, the declarant namely, Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance while refuting the allegation of the appellant that his representation has been dealt with in cavalier manner has stated that the petitioner has made his representation on 21.8. 1989 and not on 18.8.1989 as alleged by the appellant and that it was received in the office of his Department on 23.8.89 and the same was forwarded to the concerned sponsoring authority on 25.8.1989. The Sponsoring Authority sent his comments only on 11.9.1989. Thereafter, the representation along with the comments was processed and put up before the Ministry of State for Revenue, who considered and rejected the same on 15.9.1989 subject to the approval of the Finance Minister. On 18.9.89 the file was received back from the Finance Ministers office and the memorandum was issued on 19.9.89 rejecting the representation. Mr. Harjinder Singh submitted that the offices of the detaining authority and the sponsoring authority are within the metropolis of Delhi and that there is absolutely no explanation for the delay occasioned on the part of the sponsoring authority in sending his comments till 11.9.1989 though the representation was sent for comments to the said authority even on 25.8.1989 and that this considerable delay at the hands of the sponsoring authority stands unexplained vitiating the order of detention.

6. In support of the above contention, he placed much reliance on the decision of this Court in Rama Dhondu Borade v.V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police & Ors., 1989(3) SCC 173 to which one of us (Ratnavel Pandian, J.) was a party. In the above cited decision, this Court after referring to the dictum laid down in Smt. Shalini Soni v. Union of India, 1980(4) SCC 544 and some other decisions of this Court dealing with the similar questions of delayed disposal of representation, has laid down the following proposition of law :

7. However, in the same decision, it has been pointed out "What is reasonable dispatch depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid in that regard."

8. We hasten to say in this connection that inspite of the fact this Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly and consistently laid down the rule in precise and clear terms that all the procedural safeguards prescribed in under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India should be scrupulously and strictly observed one of which as ingrained in our system of judicial interpretation, being that the detenu shall be afforded an earliest opportunity of making a representation against the validity of the order of detention clamped upon him and that representation should be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible.

9. How far this Court has seriously viewed the culpable suppine indifference, callousness and recalcitrant attitude on the part of the appropriate authorities who while dealing with the representations at various stages and disposing of the same cause considerable delay is prismatically reflected with enhanced intensity through a plethora of pronouncements of this apex Court. We may appositely refer to a few.

10. Shelat, J. in Khairul Haque v. State of West Bengal, Writ Petition No. 246 of 1969 decided on 10.9.69 reported in 1969 II Supreme Court Weekly Reports 529 after referring two earlier decisions in Sk Abdul Karim and Others v. State of West Bengal, 1960(1) SCC 433 and Durga Show and Ors. v. State of West Bengal, 1970(3) SCC 696 has observed thus :

11. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal, 1979(1) SCC 219 has highly depricated the conduct of appropriate authorities in unduly and unreasonably delaying the consideration and disposal of a representation and stated as follows :

12. Sarkaria, J. in Shaik nanif & Ors. v. State of W. B., 1974(1) SCC 637 has expressed as follows :

13. In Raisuddin v. State of U.P., 1983(4) SCC 537, it is pointed out :

14. Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Frances Coralie Muffin v. W.C. Khambra and Others, 1980(2) SCC 275 has expressed his view saying :

15. We do not like to swell this judgment by recapitulating all the pronouncements of this Court on this point.

16. Now the unchallengeable legal proposition that emerges from a host of decisions, a few of which we have referred to above. is that a representation of a detenu whose liberty is in peril and deprived should be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible; otherwise the continued detention will render itself impermissible and invalid as being violative of the constitutional obligation enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution and if any delay is occured in the disposal of a representation, such delay should be explained by the appropriate authority to the satisfaction of the Court.

17. Inspite of the weighty pronouncements, of this Court making the legal position clear, it is still disquiting to note that on many occasions the appropriate authorities cause considerable delay in considering and disposing of representations and also exhibit culpable indifference in explaining such delay. We feel that in case the appropriate authority is unable to explain personally the delay at various stages, then it will be desirable--indeed appropriate--for the concerned authority or authorities at whose hands the delay has occurred to individually explain such delay.

18. The next question is should or can the Court in the absence of any explanation wink at or skip over or ignore such an infringement of the constitutional mandate and uphold an order of detention merely on the ground that the enormity of allegations made in the grounds of detention is of very serious nature as in the present case Our answer would be Not at all.

19. In this connection, it will be relevant to make reference to the view expressed by Mathew, J. speaking for the majority in Prabhu Dayal Deorah v. The District Magistrate, Kamrup and Others, 1974(1) SCC 103 which is as follows :

20. Reverting to the facts of the present case as submitted by the learned counsel, except merely mentioning that the representation was forwarded to the concerned sponsoring authority on 25.8.1989 and the comments from the sponsoring authority was received by the Department on 11.9.1989, there is absolutely no explanation as to why such a delay had occurred. Therefore, in the light of the proposition laid down in Rama Dhondu Borades case (albeit), we have no other option except to allow this appeal on the ground that this undue and unexplained delay is in violation of the constitutional obligation enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India rendering the impugned order invalid.

21. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the order of the High Court, allow the appeal and direct the detenu to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required for some other cause.