Detention declaration upheld where prior consideration of representation, prompt information supply, and witness evidence review were all shown.

A detention declaration under the COFEPOSA Act was not vitiated where contemporaneous records and the declaring authority's affidavit showed that the detenu's representation had been considered before the section 9(1) declaration was made. No breach of Article 22(5) was established because the requested information was processed promptly through the administrative chain, with intervening holidays explaining the timeline and authentic comments from Customs being legitimately obtained. The confirming authority was also not shown to have ignored the defence witness's deposition, as the Advisory Board's report referred to that evidence and was considered. The detention order and declaration were therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detaining authority had considered the detenu's representation before making the declaration under section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. (ii) Whether there was undue delay in communicating the information sought by the detenu so as to violate Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. (iii) Whether the confirming authority failed to consider the deposition of the defence witness.

Issue (i): Whether the detaining authority had considered the detenu's representation before making the declaration under section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act.

Analysis: The record showed that the representation was received, dealt with, and rejected on the same day on which the declaration was made. The declaration itself did not refer to the representation, but contemporaneous file material and the affidavit of the declaring authority showed that the representation and its allegations were in fact considered before the declaration was issued.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant; the declaration was not invalid on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether there was undue delay in communicating the information sought by the detenu so as to violate Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The material showed that the request was processed through the administrative chain with promptness, and the intervening days included holidays. The information sought was not already part of the material before the detaining authority, and the steps taken to obtain authentic comments from the Customs authorities were held to be justified.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant; no violation of Article 22(5) was established.

Issue (iii): Whether the confirming authority failed to consider the deposition of the defence witness.

Analysis: The Advisory Board's report referred to the evidence of the defence witness, and the report was considered by the confirming authority. On that basis, and in the absence of anything showing non-consideration, it could not be said that the confirming authority failed to apply its mind to the material.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant; the contention failed.

Final Conclusion: The detention order and the declaration were upheld, and the challenge to the continued detention did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: A detention declaration is not vitiated where contemporaneous records and the authority's affidavit show prior consideration of the representation, and no breach of Article 22(5) is made out unless unjustified delay in supply of information is demonstrated on the facts.

---