JUDGMENT S. Saghir Ahmad, J. - This writ petition was allowed by us by a short order dated 11111991. Today (25111991) we proceed to record our reasons. 2. The petitioner, by means of the present petition, has challenged his detention under section 3 (2) of the National Security Act under an order dated 3131991 passed by District Magistrate, Bulandshahr. This order was served on the petitioner on 3131991 in the District Jail where he was already lodged in Crime No. 20/68 of 1991 under section 364/365 etc. I.P.C., P.S. Kotwalt Dehat, district Bulandshahr. A copy of the detention order has been filed as Annexure1 which would indicate that the petitioner has been detained under the provisions of the National Security Act only on account of one incident which related to the abduction of one Mool Chand alias Brij Behari, resident of 44, Brahmpuri, Ganga Mandir wali Gali, Bulandshahr for random on 1131991 at about 900 a.m. A copy of the FIR has been filed as Annexure5 to the writ petition. It would indicate that while Mool Chand alias Brij Behari was going on a Rikshaw at about 9.15 a.m. on 11391 a Maruti Van DAE 7489 intercepted the Rikshaw. One person allegedly alighted from the Maruti Car and dragged Mool Chand alias Brij Behari inside the car which then sped away. 3. The FIR of this incident was lodged by one Rakesh Chand at Police Outpost Nai Mandi, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, district Bulandshahr, On the basis of which a case under section 363 I.P.C. was registered at Crime No. 20/68 of 1991. Since it came out during investigation that the above offence was committed for ransom, section 365 I.P.C. was also added to the aforesaid Crime No. 20/68 of 1991. 4. On 16391 at 4.00 a.m. the local Police, on an information supplied by a 'Mukhbir', recovered and rescued Sri Mool Chand alias Brij Behari from the Kamala Farm Tube Well of the Ashok Inter College where he was held in captivity for ransom. The petitioner alongwith 9 other persons, who were allegedly present at the TubeWell were arrested. A country made pistol of 12 bore and 3 cartridges were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Consequently, a case under section 25 of the Arms Act was also registered against the petitioner at P.S. Kotwali Dehat which was subsequently transferred to P.S. Aminagar Sarai, district Meerut, for investigation. 5. A country made pistol of 12 bore and 3 cartridges were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Consequently, a case under section 25 of the Arms Act was also registered against the petitioner at P.S. Kotwali Dehat which was subsequently transferred to P.S. Aminagar Sarai, district Meerut, for investigation. 5. In due course the Maruti Van used for the abduction of Mool Chand alias Brij Behari was recovered with a fake number plate but two other number plates were found inside the Van, one of which bore registration no. DAE 7489 and it was this plate which was put up on the Van at the time of the incident on 11391. 6. As pointed out earlier, the petitioner was already in jail in Crime No. 20/68 of 1991 but since he had made an application for bail before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the District Magistrate, on being satisfied that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail, passed the impugned order of detention. 7. The opposite parties have filed two separate counter affidavits. The petitioner has today filed a rejoinder affidavit. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the Government Advocate. 9. One of the grounds on which the order of detention has been assailed before us is that there has been a violation of Article 22(5) inasmuch as petitioner's representation against the order of detention made on 16491 was lying unattended with the State Government and was not decided expeditiously. It is on this ground that we intend to dispose of the petition finally. 10. Admittedly, petitioner's representation made on 16491 against the order of detention was received by the State Government with the comments of the District Magistrate on 18491. This representation had been lying unattended in the Civil Secretariat till 30491 and no action was taken on his representation. It is contended that since the opposite parties have failed to offer any explanation in their counter affidavit as to why the representation of the petitioner was not disposed of at the earliest, the order of detention is liable to be set aside, as the mandatory provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution of India in not disposing of the representation at the earliest, have been violated. 11. 11. The District Magistrate, Bulandshahr has filed a counter affidavit in the case but on the question as to how the petitioner's representation was dealt with by the opposite parties, the counter affidavit of Sri S.N. Yadav, Upper Division Assistant in Confidential SectionB, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow which has been filed separately, is the relevant affidavit. 12. It is not disputed that the petitioner had made a representation against the order of detention on 16491. His also no disputed that the above representation was received by the State Government on 18491 alongwith the comments of the District Magistrate sent through his letter dated 17491. It is also not disputed that the representation had not been dealt with by the State Government till 30491, The only explanation offered by the opposite parties is contained in para 6 of the counter affidavit filed by Sri S.N. Yadav, which is reproduced below: 'That as already stated above comments with representation was sent to Advisory Board on 22491. That thereafter office note was put up on 30491 before the Dy. Secretary who examined the same on 1591. That 21491 was Sunday and the representation could not be attended to before 30491 on account of pressure of work. That Dy. Secretary examined the same on 1591 and Special Secretary also examined on 1591 and submitted the same to the Home Secretary on 1591 and the Home Secretary also examined the same. Thereafter the same was submitted for higher orders and the State Government rejected the representation of the petitioner on 2591. Communication of rejection of the representation was communicated to the detenu by Radiogram message dated 651991 through D.M. Superintendent dated District Jail, Bulandshahr. That the representation was disposed of within a fortnight from the date of receipt by the State Govt. That there has been no undue delay in disposal of the representation. (Emphasis supplied). 13. A perusal of the above para of the counter affidavit would indicate that although the representation of the petitioner was received by the State Government on 18491, it had not been dealt with by anyone till 30491. The only explanation offered is that the representation could not be attended to before 30491 on account of pressure of work which, in our opinion, is no explanation. There will always be pressure of work specially in the Secretariat. This pressure cannot be pleaded as an excuse for nonperformance. The only explanation offered is that the representation could not be attended to before 30491 on account of pressure of work which, in our opinion, is no explanation. There will always be pressure of work specially in the Secretariat. This pressure cannot be pleaded as an excuse for nonperformance. The work, specially of the nature of Constitutional obligations, have to be performed. 14. In Tara Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1980 SC 1361 and Raghvendra Singh v. Superintendent, District Jail, Kanpur and others, AIR 1986 SC 356 , the Supreme Court has laid down that any inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government to consider the representation renders the detention illegal. In the case of Tara Chand (supra) as also in prem Nath v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 92 and Yousuf v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1170 , the Supreme Court observed that if the detenu sets up or takes the plea of undue delay in the disposal of his representation, it is for the State to offer explanation for the delay which must satisfy the conscience of the Court that the State Government has considered the representation at the earliest opportunity. 15. Prom the facts set out above, it is clearly established that the representation of the detenu had not been given prompt and expeditious consideration and was lying unattended in the Civil Secretariat Where it was taken up after a lapse of 12 days on 15 91 to be processed through the Deputy Secretary, Special Secretary and the Home Secretary before being rejected On 2591. Since the opposite parties have themselves admitted that the representation of the petitioner had not been attended to from 184 91 to 30491 on account of 'pressure of work', we are satisfied that it is a case where the detention stands vitiated by reason of representation not being taken up for expeditious and prompt disposal. 16. In view of the above, the continued detention of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order becomes bad. We, therefore, allow the writ petition and direct that the petitioner shall be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with some other case. (Petition allotted)