A. M. AHMADI, J. ( 1 ) THE detenu challenges the order under which he has been taken in preventive detention passed by the Commissioner of Police Vadodara in exercise of power conferred upon him by sub-secs (1) and (2) of sec. 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985 The impugned order was passed on 2/10/1985 and the grounds of detention bear an even date. The impugned order of detention is challenged on several grounds but in our opinion the ground regarding the delay in the consideration of the representation of the detenu is sufficient to dispose of this matter. ( 2 ) IN paragraph 10 of the petition the detenu has contended that he had made a representation to the State Government through the Superintendent Central Prison Vadodara on 14/10/1985. On a verification of the representation we find that it was tendered to the Jailor on 16/10/1985. The date 14/10/1985 is also corrected by placing the figure 16th below the figure 14th. It appears from the relevant file shown to us by the learned Public Prosecutor that the Jailor promptly despatched the representation on the very same day to the Secretary Home Department (Special) Sachivalaya Gandhinagar. That letter further shows that the representation was received by the concerned branch of the Home Department on 25th October 1985 and the same was taken up for consideration on 29/10/1985 and was rejected on 2/11/1985 but the file was received back in the Department on 4/11/1985 on which date the communication was despatched to the detenu. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Under Secretary Shri Rao it is stated that the representation was received by the Home Department on 25/10/1985 and was rejected on 4/11/1985. From the above facts it becomes clear that even though the representation was despatched by the Jailor on the very same day that is 16/10/1985 it was received by the concerned branch of the Home Department as late as 25/10/1985 It was taken up for consideration four days thereafter and was disposed of on 21/11/1985 but the file was received back by the Branch on 4/11/1985 as is clear from the endorsement on the file. It is therefore obvious that there was delay in transit inasmuch as even though the Jailor promptly despatched the representation on 16/10/1985 it was not received in the concerned branch of the Home Department till 25/10/1985. It is therefore obvious that there was delay in transit inasmuch as even though the Jailor promptly despatched the representation on 16/10/1985 it was not received in the concerned branch of the Home Department till 25/10/1985. No explanation is forth- coming as regards the time lost in transit. There is also no explanation as to why it was not taken up for consideration till 29/10/1985. However it is sought to be explained by Mr. Rao on the ground that there was considerable backlog of work following the employees strike and shortage of staff. We have stated time and again that shortage of staff is no explanation for delay If the staff is not adequate to deal with the pressure of work occasioned on account of large scale detentions ordered during a certain period it is for the department to arrange for additional staff to the extent necessary to cope up with such pressure. As regards the delay on account of backlog of work we may state that it is begging the question in that if there is accumulation of work additional staff must be drafted to clear the same and those taken in preventive detention cannot be denied the right to prompt consideration of their representation on that ground. ( 3 ) DURING this Sitting we have been constrained to quash several orders of detention because the sense of urgency required to be shown at all stages while dealing with a representation made by a detenu against his detention has not been exhibited resulting in avoidable delay in the disposal of such representations. We have noticed that the grounds of detention invariably require that the detenu should forward his representation through the jail authorities. It is our experience that generally the jail authorities promptly forward the representation to the State Government but thereafter considerable time is lost in dealing with the same. This is presumably because after the representation is received in the Home Department the registry of the department takes its own time in in warding the same in the register before forwarding it to the concerned branch. In several cases we have found that it takes more than 10-15 days for the representation to reach the concerned branch. Once it reaches the concerned branch it is dealt with expeditiously except in a few cases. In several cases we have found that it takes more than 10-15 days for the representation to reach the concerned branch. Once it reaches the concerned branch it is dealt with expeditiously except in a few cases. It is therefore necessary for the Government to evolve some system whereby representations received from the detenus are not held up in the registry and are despatched to the concerned branch on the very same day or at the most the next day. It is also necessary to see to it that after the representation is received by the concerned branch it is disposed of expeditiously and with utmost despatch so that Court may not be constrained as in the present case to strike down the detention order on the technical ground of delay in the disposal of the representation. ( 4 ) TWO changes may perhaps remedy the drawbacks in the existing system namely (i) the envelope containing the representation should carry some mark which would indicate to the staff in the registry that it pertains to a detention matter and must be entered in the register on top priority basis and ought not to be delayed beyond a day in the registry; and (ii) reduction in the levels at which the representation is dealt with in the concerned branch of the Department. If a system is evolved whereby the envelope containing the representation bears a conspicuous mark which could put the staff in the registry on the alert that the said correspondence must be dealt with on top priority basis and must receive precedence over the other normal Correspondence it will reduce the delay which is presently taking place in the registry. Similarly if the representation is dealt with at the Under Secretary or Deputy Secretary level rather than at the Section Officer level as at present it would reduce the channels for submission and help early decision-making in that behalf. What we have said is merely illustrative but it would be open to the concerned department to evolve a foolproof system to see that representations received from the detenus are not held up in the registry or decision-making is not delayed resulting in Courts being constrained to quash the detention orders. What we have said is merely illustrative but it would be open to the concerned department to evolve a foolproof system to see that representations received from the detenus are not held up in the registry or decision-making is not delayed resulting in Courts being constrained to quash the detention orders. It would be apposite to refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in this behalf in Vijay Kumar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 1982 SC 1023 :"the representation is to be made to the Government. Therefore the detenu who has already been served with the detention order and thus deprived of his liberty would ordinarily be in a position to had his representation through the jail authorities. The jail authority is merely a communicating channel because the representation has to reach the Government which enjoys the power of revoking the detention order. The intermediary authorities who are communicating authorities has also to move with an amount of promptitude so that the statutory guarantee of affording earliest opportunity of making the representation and the same reaching the Government is translated into action. The corresponding obligation of the State to consider the representation cannot he whittled down by merely saying that much time was lost in the transit. If the Government enacts a law like the present Act empowering certain authorities to make the detention order and also simultaneously makes a statutory provision of affording the earliest opportunity to the detenu to make his representation against his detention. to the Government and not the detaining authority of necessity the -State Government must gear up its own machinery to see that in these cases the representation reaches the Government as quickly as possible and it is considered by the authorities with equal promptitude. Any slackness in this behalf not properly explained would be denial of the protection conferred by the statute and would result in invalidation of the order. 92"we have thought it necessary to say a few words in this behalf because it has pained us to see that representations received from the detenus have not been dealt with with the promotitude expected of the S (ate Government. The delay has been mainly on account of either delay in transit or delay in dealing with the representation after it has reached the concerned blanch. The delay has been mainly on account of either delay in transit or delay in dealing with the representation after it has reached the concerned blanch. We have suggested a change with a view to plugging the areas of delay but as stated earlier our suggestions are not exhaustive and it would be open to the concerned department to evolve a system whereby representations are disposed of with that sense of urgency which is expected of the State Government in detention matters. We do hope that serious thought will be given to this matter because as observed earlier we have been constrained to strike down detention orders for the failure on the part of the Government to attend to the representations with promptitude. ( 5 ) IN the instant case also since the representation of the detenu was not dealt with expeditiously we have no other alternative but to quash the detention order. The Petition therefore succeeds. The order of detention is quashed and the detenu is ordered to be released at once unless required in any other matter. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (The rest of the Judgment is not material for the reports.) (KMV) petition allowed: Detention quashed .