JUDGMENT R.A. Misra, J. - Sri Mumtaj Husain has preferred this petition of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of detention dated 10-10-1982 made against him under S. 3 (3). National Security Act, by the District Magistrate Moradabad. 2. Sri Mumtaj Husain was arrested on 6.10.1982 in connection with a case under S. 302, I. P. C., and the impugned order of detention was passed on 10-10-1982 while he was in jail The detention order along with the grounds thereof were served upon him on 11-10-1982. He challenged the detention order vide petition under Article 226 of the Constitution (Writ Petn. No. 14102 of 1982) (reported in 1983 All LJ 431) which has been dismissed by this Court on 31st January, 1983. he has filed this second petition and the learned counsel representing him has pressed the following two points which were neither pleaded nor decided in the previous petition: firstly that the detenu's representation made by his brother to Central Government on his behalf on 10-2-83 still remains undisposed of; secondly that the order of detention has been passed without proper application of mind inasmuch as the awareness of the fact that the detenu was in jail and yet the order of his detention under the National Security Act is compelling necessity does not bear out from the order or grounds supplied to him. 3. It has been deposed in para 20 of the petition that on 11-2-1983 the petitioner made an attempt to submit his representation addressed to the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister but the officials of the jail refused to forward the representations to the Central and State Governments. Thereupon the petitioner's brother Safdar Husain sent the representation to the Superintendent, district jail Moradabad by registered post on the same day. It was received by the Superintendent district jail Moradabad who called the petitioner in his office on 12-2-1983 and obtained his signatures over the representation. The Superintendent assured that the representations would be forwarded to the Central and the State Governments at the earliest but the petitioner has no knowledge that these representations have actually been forwarded. The detaining authority while replying to para 20 of the petition vide para 16 of his affidavit says that the representation dated 11-2-1983 was forwarded by the Superintendent district Jail Moradabad to him on 12-2-1983. The detaining authority while replying to para 20 of the petition vide para 16 of his affidavit says that the representation dated 11-2-1983 was forwarded by the Superintendent district Jail Moradabad to him on 12-2-1983. As the file of the deponent was at Allahabad with the Government Advocate, it was summoned therefrom for making comments. The case was carefully examined on receipt of the record and comments were prepared. The representation together with the comments of the detaining authorities were sent to the Government on 5-3-1983. There is no word in the reply of the detaining authority to say -that the petitioner's representation addressed to the Prime Minister of India (Central Government) was either sent directly to the Central Government or was even sent to the Central Government through the State Government. The affidavit filed by Sri Chandra Pal Singh on behalf of the State does not say that any representation addressed to the Central Government or the Prime Minister was received as alleged in para 20 of the petition and was sent to the Central Government. There is no mention of any representation addressed to the Central Government in para 4 of the State Government's affidavit which replies para 20 of the petition. In the result, the detaining authority as well as the State Government have failed to explain as to how have they dealt with the petitioner's representation addressed to the Central Government. We would like to repeat that they did not say, to have forwarded this representation to the Central Government. 4. The petitioner in para 21 of the petition says that he believes that his representation dated 11-2-83 has not been disposed of by appropriate authorities. There is nothing in the affidavits filed on behalf of the detaining authority and the State Government to say that the petitioner's representation dated 11-2-83 addressed to the Central Government has.been disposed of. Sufficient opportunity was given to the Central Government to file a counter- affidavit to meet these allegations of the petitioner but no counter-affidavit was filed within the time allowed. A futile attempt was made by the learned counsel appearing for the Central Government when the case was taken up for hearing to file a counter- affidavit but it was not taken on record because the learned counsel failed to disclose any good reason for not having filed the counter-affidavit for such a long time. 5. A futile attempt was made by the learned counsel appearing for the Central Government when the case was taken up for hearing to file a counter- affidavit but it was not taken on record because the learned counsel failed to disclose any good reason for not having filed the counter-affidavit for such a long time. 5. In para 22 of the petition it is alleged that the petitioner's brother did send a representation on 8-2-1983 on the instructions of the petitioner to the President of India and Prime Minister of India. It was received in the office of the President of India on 12-2-1983 and in the office of the Prime Minister on 14-2-1983. These representations were made for revocation of the order of detention passed against the petitioner. In para 22 of the petition it has been deposed that the representations received in the offices of the President of India and Prime Minister have not been disposed of by the Central Government but have been sent to the State Government for necessary action and the petitioner's brother has been informed accordingly with the directions to contract the State Government in the matter. It is thus established that the representations made for and on behalf of the petitioner for revocation of the order of detention were received in the offices of the President and Prime Minister of India but these representations have not been disposed of by the Central Government. They have been sent for necessary action to the State Government. In Shyam Amba Lal Siroya v. Union of India, ( AIR 1980 SC 789 ) it has been held that the power of the Central Government under S. 11 to revoke the order of detention implies that the detenue can make a representation for exercise of that power. Any petition for revocation of an order of detention-should be dealt with with reasonable expedition. It may be permissible for the Central Government to take reasonable time for disposing of any revocation petition but it would not be justified in ignoring a representation for revocation of the detention as statutory duty is cast upon the Central Government. It is necessary that the Government should apply its mind and either revoke the order of detention or dismiss the petition declining to order for revocation. It is necessary that the Government should apply its mind and either revoke the order of detention or dismiss the petition declining to order for revocation. In the instant case before us the Central Government instead of applying its mind and dealing with the matter according to law has sent the representation itself to the State Government for necessary action and asked the detenu's brother to contact the State Government in the matter. The Central Government cannot delegate its power conferred upon it under S. 11, National Security Act; to the State Government. The right to make a representation is a fundamental right and such a representation should be considered expeditiously by the Government to whom it has been made. In Tarachand v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1980 SC 1361 ) it has been held that S. 11 (1) clearly enjoins that the Central Government may revoke or modify the order of detention passed by the State Government : hence when once a representation is made to the Central Government it is duty bound to consider the same in order to exercise its discretion either in rejecting or accepting it. If there is inordinate delay in considering the representation that would clearly amount to violation of provisions of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution so as to render the detention unconstitutional and void. In Smt. Raziya Umar Baxi v. Union of India, ( AIR 1980 SC 1751 ) it has been observed that S. 11 confers a constitutional right on the detenu to get his representation considered by the Central Government. It is 'true that the Central Government has a discretion to revoke or confirm the detention, but the detenu has undoubtedly a right that the representation should be considered by the Central Government for whatever worth it is. In the case before us the representation of the petitioner was undoubtedly received in the offices of the President and Prime Minister of India. It is established that his representations received have not been considered and disposed of by the Central Government but have been sent to the State Government for necessary action in the matter. Non-consideration of the petitioner's representation by the Central Government does vitiate the order of detention as has been held in the cases cited above. 6. It is established that his representations received have not been considered and disposed of by the Central Government but have been sent to the State Government for necessary action in the matter. Non-consideration of the petitioner's representation by the Central Government does vitiate the order of detention as has been held in the cases cited above. 6. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the State that Moradabad is still a sensitive area and the District Magistrate may find it difficult to maintain public order if such persons who are potential threat to the maintenance of public order are set at liberty. The least which we can say on this assertion is that these factors are not at all relevant for determining the questions at issue. The Constitution enjoins conformance with the provisions of Article 22 and the Court exacts compliance. Article 22 (5) vestes in the detenu the right to make a representation and obligate appropriate Government to apply its mind an determine it. The principal enemy of the detenu and his right to make a representation is neither high-handedness nor mean-mindedness but casual indifference, the mindless insensibility, the routine and the red-tapism of the bureaucratic machine. In the instant case it is clear that without applying mind to the facts stated in the representation the officers concerned have sent the same to the State Government for necessary action in routine and casual manner. The Constitution does not permit such casual indifference, mindless in sensibility routine red-tapism while dealing with the representations against the orders of preventive detentions because no freedom is higher than personal freedom and no duty is higher than to maintain it unimpaired. In the result, the non- determination of the petitioner's representation sent to the President of India and Prime Minister, vitiates the continuous detention of the petitioner and the petition shall be allowed on that ground alone. We, therefore, do not find it necessary to deal with the second point. 7. The learned Addl. Government Advocate made a request at the time of the delivery of judgment for leave to appeal. We have considered his prayer but find no substance in it. The prayer for leave to appeal to Supreme Court is consequently rejected. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 10-10-1982 passed against the petitioner Mumtaz Hussain alias Laddan Khutara is quashed. We have considered his prayer but find no substance in it. The prayer for leave to appeal to Supreme Court is consequently rejected. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 10-10-1982 passed against the petitioner Mumtaz Hussain alias Laddan Khutara is quashed. The opposite parties are directed to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.