S.SAGHIR AHMAD - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THE appellant has been detained in pursuance of an order dated 4-11-1997 passed under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, 'the Act'). This was followed by a declaration under Section 9(1) of the Act which was made on 27-11-1997. These orders were challenged by the appellant before the Madras High Court by a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was dismissed on 15-12-1998. It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been filed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that against the order dated 27-11-1997 passed under Section 9(1) of the Act, the appellant had made a representation to the Central Government on 8/10-12-1997. But the representation was rejected after an inordinate delay for which no reasonable explanation has been provided by the respondents. In the counter-affidavit filed before the High Court in this case, the respondents had sought to explain the delay as under :- "9. With regard to averments made in Para 8(xxxviii) it is humbly submitted that the representation dated 8-12-1997 (actually dated 10-12-1997) was received in the office of the Department of Revenue on 15-12-1997 from the State Government of Tamil Nadu. The same was received in the COFEPOSA Unit of the Ministry on 16-12-1997. JUDGEMENT_113_JT3_1999Html1.htm We have considered the explanation and have also examined the original files. The respondents before disposing of the representation had sought clarifications thrice. A perusal of the original file placed before us reveals that the clarifications were sought in the usual bureaucratic style only for the sake of clarification without there being any need for it. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the representation was disposed of with promptitude. On the contrary, even the explanation offered by the respondents in their counter-affidavit filed before the High Court indicates the lethargic attitude with which the representation was taken up, dealt with and ultimately disposed of after seeking clarifications thrice on issues which did really not arise nor were there any necessity for seeking clarifications. The representation could have been disposed of without seeking clarification which obviously was sought to cover up the delay in prompt disposal of the representation. 5. Since the matter was not considered by the High Court in the right perspective, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 15-12-1998 passed by the High Court is set aside and the detention order dated 4-11-1997 passed under Section 3(1)(i) of the Act as also the declaration made on 27-11-1997 under Section 9(1) of the Act are quashed with the direction that the appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with some other case. Appeal allowed.;