- (1.) VISHNU Sahai, J. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu has impugned the order dated 22-2-2002 passed by the third respondent Mr. C. P. Singh, Dy. Secretary Government of U. P. Lucknow, Department of Home (Grah Evam Gopniya Vibhag) U. P. Lucknow detaining him under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities, 1974 (COFEPOSA, 1974 ).
(2.) THE detention order alongwith the grounds of detention which are also dated 22-2-2002 was served on the petitioner-detenu on 22-2-2002 itself and their true copies have been annexed to the writ petition. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Since in our view this writ petition deserves to succeed on the ground that there has been an inordinate delay on the part of the State Government in disposing of petitioner's representation dated 9-3- 2002. We are not referring to the prejudicial acts attributed to the petitioner-detenu in the grounds of detention. In para 15 of the petition it has been averred that the petitioner preferred a representation to the authorities concerned on 9-3-2002, through Superintendent of Jail against the impugned detention order.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner urged that a perusal of para 17 of the return filed by Mr. J. P. Sharma Dy. Secretary Department of Home (Confidential Department) U. P. Civil Secretariat Lucknow shows that there has been an inordinate and unexplained delay between 16-2-2002 and 26-2-2002 by the State Government in disposing of petitioner-detenu's representation which has rendered his continued detention bad in law. The averment contained in para 15 of the petition has been replied to in para 17 of the return of Mr. J. P. Sharma referred to above. In short he has stated therein thus: "on 9-3-2002, petitioner preferred a representation which was received in the concerned Section on 15- 3-2002, on which date (sic) comments were called from the Commissioner of Customs and copies of the representation were sent to Central Government and Advisory Board. Thereafter the concerned section of the State Government examined the representation and submitted a note on 16-3-2002. On 16-3- 2002 the Deputy Secretary examined it and submitted it to the Secretary of Home and Confidential Department who examined it and forwarded it for final orders to the State Government which rejected it on 26-3-2002. ";