M. M. LAL J. ( 1 ) THIS is a Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an order of detention dated 26/5/1987 passed by District Magistrate, Allahabad under section 3 (2) of National Security Act, 1980. ( 2 ) IN a case under section 60 of the Excise Act the petitioner was arrested on 13/5/1987 by C. R. P. Police, Mirzapur. He was sent to District Jail, Mirzapur on 14/5/1987. The District Magistrate, Allahabad passed the detention order against the petitioner on 26/5/1987. The same was served on the petitioner on 27/5/1987. The said order was approved by the State Government on 1/6/1987. The case of the petitioner was referred by the State Government to the Advisory Board on 6-6-87. The petitioner made a representation against his detention order on 11-6-87. The said representation was sent by Superintendent, District Jail, Mirzapur to the District Magistrate, Allahabad by post on 11/6/1987. The said representation was received by the District Magistrate, Allahabad on 17/6/1987. On 18/6/1987 the District Magistrate, Allahabad caned for the comments of the police which were furnished on 27-6-87. Thereafter the District Magistrate, Allahabad forwarded his comments and the representations to the State Government on 27-6-87. The said documents were received by confidential Section in the State Government on 29-6-87. The representation of the petitioner was placed before Advisory Board on 30-6-87. The hearing before the Advisory Board took place on 2/7/1987. In the mean while the concerned Section in the Secretariat examined the representation of the petitioner and prepared a detailed note on 1-7-1987. The representation of the petitioner was examined by the Joint Secretary (Home), Special Secretary (Home) and Home Secretary on 2/3/7/1987. There representation of the petitioner was rejected by the State Government on 5/7/1989. The petitioner had made a second representation as well which was received by the State Government on 1/7/1987. The said representation was rejected by the State Government on 24-7-87. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has challenged his detention order on a number of grounds but the main ground which the learned counsellor the petitioner has urged before us is that there was undue delay in dealing with the representation made by the petitioner. The said representation was rejected by the State Government on 24-7-87. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has challenged his detention order on a number of grounds but the main ground which the learned counsellor the petitioner has urged before us is that there was undue delay in dealing with the representation made by the petitioner. It may again be noted that the petitioner bad handed over his first representation to the jail authorities as early as on 11/6/1987 and the same was rejected by the State Government as late as on 5/7/1987. There was thus, delay in dealing with the representation made by the petitioner. It has been held in Hem Lal Bhandari v. State of Sikkim and others, that it is not permissible in matters relating to the personal liberty and freedom of a citizen to take either a liberal or a generous view of the lapses on the part of the officers and that in matters where the liberty of the citizens is involved it is necessary for the officers to act with utmost expedition and in strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of law. Expeditious action is insisted upon as a safe-guard against the manipulation. Similarly, in Saleh Mohd. v. Union of India and Shri Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court has observed as follows: Times out of number, this court bas emphasised that where the liberty of an individual is curtailed under a law of preventive detention the representation, if any, made by him must be attended to, dealt with and considered with watchful care and reasonable promitude lest the safeguards provided in Article 22 (5) of the Constitution and the statute concerned should be stultified and rendered meaningless. ( 4 ) LEARNED Deputy Government Counsel, on the other hand, has urged before us that the delay in dealing with the representation of the petitioner is explained in this case. In this context he has referred to us the affidavit sworn by the District Magistrate, Allahabad wherein it has been stated that the representation dated 11-6-87 given by the petitioner was sent to him by post by the Superintendent, District Jail, Mirzapur and the same was received by his office on 17-6-87 and that in order to get some facts elicited from the police a copy of the representation was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad on 18-6-87. He has further stated that because Sri A. P. Shukla, the then Station Officer, Police Station, Sarai Aakil, who had made the proposal for the detention of the petitioner, had been transference on 18-6-86, hence the said representation was not immediately attended, that instead of four Sub-Inspectors there was only one Sub-Inspector available, at Police Station, Sarai Aakil, that the available Sub-Inspector Sri Sureshwar Ojha went to make a raid in connection with the arrest and effecting the recovery of a property looted in a dacoity on 19-6-87, that the new Station Officer joined the duties at the said police station on 21- 6-87 at about 10 in the night and that, therefore, the police reply was prepared and made available to his office on 23-6-87. The District Magistrate further stated in his affidavit that as be was not satisfied, hence he caned for more information from the police which was made available to him on 27-6-87. The District Magistrate then forwarded the representation of the petitioner, along with his comments, on 27-6-87. If may first be noted that for dispatching the representation of the petitioner from the District Jail, Mirzapur a slow moving made, i. e. of post was selected whereby the representation of the petitioner took six days to reach from Mirzapur to Allahabad. Anyway, when the representation of the petitioner had been received in the office of the District Magistrate, Allahabad on 17-6-87 and the District Magistrate called for certain information from the police on 18. 6. 87 the police took a long time to submit reply to the District Magistrate. The explanation that, the then Station Officer, police Station, Sarai Aakil, i. e. Sri Sureshwar Ojha, who had made a proposal for the detention of the petitioner, bad been transferred and that, therefore, the query made by the District Magistrate, Allahabad was not promptly attended is not a good explanation because in absence of said Sri Ojha the necessary information was to be sent to the District Magistrate by the available Sub-Inspector and this is what ultimately happened in the matter. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why the case was not attended on 20th and 21st June 1987. The new Station Officer had joined his duties on 21-6-87 at 10 p. m. He is said to have prepared the comments on 23-6-87. There is thus, no explanation for 22-6-87 as well. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why the case was not attended on 20th and 21st June 1987. The new Station Officer had joined his duties on 21-6-87 at 10 p. m. He is said to have prepared the comments on 23-6-87. There is thus, no explanation for 22-6-87 as well. The District Magistrate has stated that he called for further information from the police. It has not been stated as to how and why further information from the police was necessary and on which date the said explanation was called by the District Magistrate Allahabad. Therefore, the explanation of delay given by the District Magistrate is unsatisfactory. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why no action was taken on the representation of the detenue on June 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 26, 1987. ( 5 ) THE representation along with the comments of the District Magistrate was received by the State Government in the Confidential Section on 29/6/1987. It is said that on 1/7/1987 the section concerned prepared its comments on the said representation, which were examined by the Joint Secretary (Home), Special Secretary (Home) and Home Secretary on July 2, and 3, 1987. The representation of the petitioner was ultimately rejected on 5/7/1987. There is, thus, no explanation given by the State Government as to why no action was taken on the representation of the detenue on 30/6/1987 and 4/7/1987. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, there was inordinate delay in considering the representation of the detenu and accordingly his detention became bad in law. ( 7 ) IN Harish Pahwn v. State of U. P. and others, it has been pointed out by the Supreme Court that It does not look with equanimity upon delays to considering the representations of detenus. Where the liberty of a person is involved it is the duty of the State to determine his representation with the utmost expedition and deal with it continuously until a final decision is taken and communicated to the detenue. In that case the representation of the detenue was received by the State Government on 4th June, 1980. The detention was under COFEPOSA. Comments were called for from the Customs authorities on 6th June. 1980 and the comments were received on 13th June, 1980. In that case the representation of the detenue was received by the State Government on 4th June, 1980. The detention was under COFEPOSA. Comments were called for from the Customs authorities on 6th June. 1980 and the comments were received on 13th June, 1980. On 17th 1980, the State Government referred the representation to its Law Department for its opinion which was furnished on 19th June 1980. The representation was rejected on 24th June, 1980. The rejection was communicated to the jail authorities two days later. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court held in that case that there was no explanation given by the Government as to why no action was taken on the representation of the detenu on 4th, 5th and 25th June, 1980 and what consideration was given by the Government to it from 13th June, 1980 to 16th June 1980. On that ground it was held that there was inordinate delay in considering the representation of the detenu and the detention became bad in law. The aforesaid view has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Sri Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, (supra ). In Moinuddin v. District Magistrate, Beed and others also the Honble Supreme Court has observed that unexplained delay on part of State Government to consider representation made by the detenu to Chief Minister had vitiated the order of detention and that the continued detention of detenu was illegal. ( 8 ) WE are, thus of the opinion that because in this case the representation made by the detenu was not disposed of expeditiously and there was undue delay in dealing with the same hence the detention of the petitioner became bad in law. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 26/5/1987 is hereby quashed. In case, the petitioner is not required in any other case he shall be set at liberty forthwith.