Yashoda Nandan, J. - (1.) As a consequence of an order passed on the 19th September. 1980 by the Secretary of U.P. Government, Confidential Department in the name of Governor of the State the petitioner is under detention under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974, hereinafter referred to as the Act. He was taken in custody on the 24th September, 1980 and was immediately served with a copy of grounds on which his detention had been recorded. His detention having been confirmed by the State Government and the representation made by him having been rejected by the Advisory Board constituted under Section 8 of the Act he has filed this petition praying for quashing the order by which he has been detained and for a writ of Habeas Corpus directing his release from detention. He is at present lodged in the Central Jail, Bareilly.
(2.) The material facts which need to be set out for a proper appreciation of the contention raised in support of the petition are that on the 4th February,1980 Central Excise Officers of Gold and Preventive Branch, Varanasi, carried out a raid on the business premises of the petitioner who is a dealer in electrical goods and carried on business in the name and style of M/s. Maharaja Electric Company, mohalla Senpura, Varanasi and admittedly found three packages lying in front of M/s. Maharaja Electric Company ready for removal on a rickshaw. The packages were seized and were found to contain 200 pieces of one variety of electrical goods manufactured in Germany and 870 pieces of another item also manufactured in Germany. Admittedly the petitioner was not in possession of any import licence or any receipt showing payment of customs duty. The petitioner states that he was taken in custody by the officers who had conducted the raid and was compelled to give a statement in writing under coercion. A notice dated 26th July, 1980 was served on the petitioner requiring him to show cause to the Additional Collector of Customs as to why the seized goods should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. 1962 and why a penalty should not be imposed upon him under Section 112 of that Act. The order dated 19th September, 1980 states that since the Government was satisfied that with a view to preventing him from keeping smuggled goods it was necessary to do so he was being detained under Section 3(1)(iii) of the Act. According to the ground served on the petitioner on a search of his business premises on the 4th February, 1980 by the Officers of the Central Excise Department of Varanasi Region, 270 pieces of imported electrical goods had been recovered therefrom which were valued at a sum of Rs. 1,85,750/-. It was stated that the petitioner possessed no permit or licence for importing, the goods seized from his business premises. The second ground as disclosed was that before the authorities of the Customs department by means of a written explanation dated 4th February, 1980 the petitioner had admitted that he was neither in possession of any licence for importing the foreign goods recovered from his possession nor had any customs duty been paid thereon. It was stated that on the basis of the two grounds mentioned above the Government was satisfied that the petitioner was likely to keep smuggled goods and it was necessary to. detain him to prevent him from doing so.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the detenu firstly contended that since in dealing with the representation made by him there had been undue delay on the part of the Government, there had been violation of the requirement of Article 22(5) of the Constitution and consequently his detention was liable to be set aside. In support of his contention learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Saleh Mohammad v. Union of India MANU/SC/0217/1980., AIR1981 SC 111 , 1980 CriLJ1496 , (1980 )4 SCC428 , 1981 (13 )UJ161 (SC ). The decision above mentioned in our opinion has no relevance on the facts of this particular case, The petitioner before the Supreme Court, Saleh Mohammad was arrested on the 21st January, 1980 on the basis of the; order of detention dated 18th Jaanuary. 1980 passed under Section 3 of the Act. The detention order (sic) and the 23rd January, 1980 in the jail. On the 20th February. 1980 the petitioner made a representation before the detaining' authority through the Superintendent of Jail where he was lodged. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected by the State Government on the 26th March. 1980. The Supreme Court while allowing the petition filed by Saleh Mohammad under Article 32 of the Constitution noticed that the. representation submitted by the detenu; through the Superintendent of Jail on the 20th February, 1980 remained lying at the office of Inspector General of Prisons unattended for 22 days and this inordinate, unreasonable and un-warranted delay amounted to a viola-tion of Article 22(5) which guarantees to the detenu a right to have his representation considered with reasonable expedition. It may be noticed here that Saleh Mohammad's representation dated 20th February, 1980 was rejected by the State Government after the delay of nearly five weeks. From the record produced by the State counsel before us it appears that the first representation was made by the petitioner on the 29th September. 1980 and it was received by the State Government on the 3rd October, 1980. On the same date the comments of the Collector. of Customs, Gorakhpur were called for by the Government by the 8th October 1980. The comments of the Collector of Customs on the representation made by the petitioner were received by the Government on the 9th October, 1980. This representation after obtaining the approval of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh was rejected by the State Government on the 17th October, 1980. In the meanwhile a second representation dated 29th September, 1980 itself was received by the Government on the 15th October, 1980, On the second representation the Government again sent for the comments of the Collector of Customs. Gorakhpur by 21st October, 1980. The comments of the Collector of Customs were received by the Government on the second representation made by the petitioner on 21st October, I960,. On the 22nd October, 1980 the second representation of the petitioner was also rejected after the approval of the Chief Minister had been obtained. That the State Government had rejected both the representations made by the petitioner was communicated to the petitioner through the Superintendent of the Jail, Bareilly on the 23rd October, 1980. It is thus clear that even the rejection of the first representation made by the petitioner was communicated to him within merely three weeks. Neither of the two representations can consequently be characterised as having been decided after inordinate delay and the contention that there had been a violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution is in our opinion meritless.;