Prompt forwarding of detention revocation representations is required, but delay alone does not automatically vitiate detention.

A detenu may make both a constitutional representation under Article 22(5) and a separate request for revocation to the Central Government under Section 11(1)(b) of COFEPOSA. The State Government has a corresponding duty to forward a representation addressed to the Central Government promptly, because the revocation power under Section 11 is independent of consideration by the State Government and Advisory Board. However, unexplained delay in forwarding, by itself, does not invalidate continued detention unless it denies the detenu the right to seek revocation or causes other legally material prejudice. On the facts stated, the detention was not vitiated by the delay.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detaining authority or the State Government was bound to forward the detenu's representation addressed to the Central Government for revocation of detention under Section 11 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, and whether unexplained delay in such forwarding invalidated the continued detention.

Analysis: A detenu may simultaneously make a representation against detention under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and seek revocation from the Central Government under Section 11(1)(b) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The power of revocation under Section 11 is independent of, and additional to, the consideration of the representation by the State Government and the Advisory Board under Section 8 of that Act. When such a representation is made to the Central Government, the State Government has a corresponding duty to forward it promptly. In the facts found, the representation addressed to the Central Government was withheld by the State Government for a substantial period without explanation, though the Central Government itself acted promptly after receipt. The delay was criticised, but it was held that mere unexplained delay in forwarding, without deprivation of the right to make the representation to the Central Government and without any showing of prejudice beyond that delay, did not by itself vitiate the detention.

Conclusion: The detention was not invalidated on the ground of delay in forwarding the representation to the Central Government.

Ratio Decidendi: A detenu has a constitutional and statutory right to have a representation for revocation under Section 11(1)(b) promptly forwarded to the Central Government, but unexplained delay in transmission, by itself, does not nullify detention unless it results in denial of the right or other legally material prejudice.

---