JUDGMENT Kamleshwar Nath, J. - This writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus seeks to quash the order of detention dated 28984, Annexure2 to the writ petition, passed against the petitioner Bhola Nath Singh under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 read with Section 3(2) of the said Act by the District Magistrate of Ballia. 2. The detention order, Annexure2, was passed on 2891984 and along with the grounds contained in Annexure3, was served upon the petitioner. According to the petitioner the first representation against the order was made by petitioner's father on 29984 and when nothing was heard about it, the petitioner himself made the second representation on 810.1984 and finally on 12.10.84, the petitioner's father made a last representation, annexing therewith a copy of the representation dated 29984. It would be enough to consider the facts relating to the petitioner's own representation dated 81084 for the purposes of this writ petition. 3. According to the admitted facts the petitioner's representation dated 81084 was received by the State Government along with the District Magistrate's comments on 111084. On 23 1084 the State Government considered and rejected the representation. A letter communicating the rejection was signed on 271084; it was ultimately served upon the petitioner on 61184. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that there has been unexplained delay in the disposal of the said representation dated 81084 and again in the communication of rejection to the petitioner. This, he says, violated the guarantee contained in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and vitiated the detention order, as held in the case of Harish Pahwa v. State of U.P. (1981 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 589. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate says that the representation having been received by the State Government on 111084, its disposal on 231084, i. e., after 12 days cannot be said to be really delayed. In this connection it may be mentioned that in the counteraffidavit filed by Sri Vishnu Sahai, an Upper Division Assistant of Confidential Section6 of the U.P. Civil Secretariat, does not provide any specific explanation of the delay, if at all the period aforesaid may be said to constitute delay. In this connection it may be mentioned that in the counteraffidavit filed by Sri Vishnu Sahai, an Upper Division Assistant of Confidential Section6 of the U.P. Civil Secretariat, does not provide any specific explanation of the delay, if at all the period aforesaid may be said to constitute delay. In para 7 of the counteraffidavit it is stated that representation dated 81084 submitted by the petitioner has been considered and rejected by the State Government, as already mentioned and in the circumstances there has been no delay in the consideration of the same. The upshot is that it is not intended to submit any explanation of delay; the only point for consideration is, whether there was a delay which vitiates the order. 6. In the case of Harish Pahwa referred to hereinabove, the detenu made his representation on June 3, 1980 which was received in the State Government on June 4, 1980. The Supreme Court observed that there was no explanation of delay of two days on the 4th and 5th of June 1980. Again, the representation was rejected on 24th June, 1980 which had been communicated to the Jail authorities, where the detenu was in custody, two days later. The Supreme Court noticed that there was no explanation for noncommunication on 25680. Having thus observed, the Supreme Court went on to say in para 5 as follows : We would emphasis that it is the duty of the State to proceed to determine representations of the character above mentioned with utmost expedition, which means that the matter must be taken up for consideration as soon as such a representation is received and dealt with continuously (unless it is absolutely necessary to wait for some assistance in connection with it) until a final decision is taken and communicated to the detenu. This not having been done in the present case we have no option but to declare the detention unconstitutional. 7. We think that if two days' delay in nonconsideration of the representation or one day's delay in noncommunication of the rejection was considered to be material and fatal to the detention order in the absence of a proper explanation, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of that decision in the present case where the delay has been much more. 8. 8. The learned Additional Government Advocate invited our attention to the case of Sat Pal v. State of Punjab and others, (1982 Supreme Court Gases (Criminal) 46) to contend that in that case representation had been made on 8781 and was rejected on 2471981 but the detention order was not held to be invalid. Decision in that case does not rest upon the question of delay or its effect upon the detention order. The points agitated before the Supreme Court are mentioned in Para 5 of the report, and they deal with the reference of the detenu's representation by the State Government to the Central Government. They do not deal with the delay in the disposal of the detenu's representation by the State Government itself or of its effect upon the validity of the detention order. 9. The learned Additional Government Advocate then says that after 231084 when the petitioner's representation was rejected, certain facts of common knowledge would indicate that there was no delay in communicating the order. It is urged that 24h, 25th and 26th of October, 1984 were public holidays for Dipawali. The letter communicating the order was issued on 271074, 281084 was Sunday. It is said that after two days' gap of 29th and 30th of October, 1984 the former Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi was assassinated and the Secretariat was closed and that is why the letter dated 271084 could be delivered to the petitioner on 611 1984. In the first place, the exact period of the closure of the relevant office of the Secretariat should have been proved by an affidavit, to which the petitioner could have an opportunity to file a rejoinder affidavit. In the second place, there is, in any case, no explanation of the delay of 29th and 30th of October, 1984. In the absence of an affidavit, it is not possible to hold affirmatively that the concerned office remained closed during all the time from 31st October to 5th of November, 1984. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Harish Pahwa, the representation has not only to be taken up for consideration as soon as it is received but also to be dealt with continuously. until a final decision is taken and communicated to the detenu. 10. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Harish Pahwa, the representation has not only to be taken up for consideration as soon as it is received but also to be dealt with continuously. until a final decision is taken and communicated to the detenu. 10. In these circumstances we are not satisfied that there was no delay also in the communication of the order of rejection of the petitioner's representation. 11. The petition is allowed and the order dated 28984 contained in Annexure2 of the writ petition for detention of the petitioner is quashed. The petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in any other case.