(1.) This petition challenges the detention order dated 31/7/1998 passed against the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The main ground of challenge to the detention order is the inordinate and unexplained delay in disposing of the representation filed by the petitioner which vitiates the impugned detention order.
(2.) It is also submitted that there is only a solitary incident involved and such a single incident cannot form the basis of a valid detention order under the Act. The incident relates to the recovery of two tempo loads containing ball bearings of foreign origin when they were about off-load their cargo in front of the godown-cum-residence of the father of the petitioner on 1/5/1998. The petitioner is also stated to be only 16 years old. It is not necessary to consider the other pleas raised by the petitioner because of the view we are taking in this judgment on the quantum of delay. The main plea of the petitioner was that the representation dated 21/8/1998, was submitted to the Chairman, Advisory Board and the copy of the said representation was not sent to the detaining authority or the Central Government or the sponsoring authority.
(3.) The affidavit of the respondents states that the hearing before the Advisory Board was on 16/9/1998 and the representation was sent by the Board alongwith its report on 23/9/1998 and was received by the detaining authority on the same date. On the next day i.e. 24/9/1998 it was sent to the sponsoring authority for its comments. The sponsoring authority sent its comments on 13/10/1998. The respondents were given opportunity during the hearing to file an additional affidavit to explain the delay. In their additional affidavit the respondents state as follows :