JUDGMENT : - M.K. Mukherjee, J: Puasuant to an order made under s. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ('COFEPOSA' for short) by a joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Government of India, New Delhi on January 29, 1991, Om Prakash Modi (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu'), the father of the petitioner is detained in the Alipore Central Jail, Calcutta from January 30, 1991 with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods and dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting, concealing or keeping smuggled goods. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on March 15, 1991 praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. 2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the order of detention on various grounds, one of which is that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in considering and disposing of the representation of the detenu and as such his continued detention is violative of the mandatory provisions of Article 22(5) of the constitution of India As we are inclined to dispose of the writ petition on this ground alone we do not propose to advert to the other grounds canvassed before us nor is it necessary for us to detail the facts on which the order of detention is founded. 3. Admittedly, the representation made by the detenu on February 26, 1991 was forwarded by the Superintendent of the Alipore Central Jail on Much 7, 1991 and it was received by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi on March 13, 1991. On the same day, the Ministry forwarded the representation to the sponsoring authority at Calcutta seeking it, comments thereupon and it was received by the latter on March 14, 1991. The sponsoring authority in its turn forwarded the comments and the representation to the COFEPOSA Section of the Ministry of Finance, New Delhi on April 5, 1991 and it was received on April 5. 1991. Thereafter the papers were processed and put up before the Finance Minister of the Government of India, through the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Finance on April 5. 1991. 1991. Thereafter the papers were processed and put up before the Finance Minister of the Government of India, through the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Finance on April 5. 1991. The Finance Minister rejected the representation on April 6, 1991 and a memorandum to that effect was issued on April 9, 1991. In the context of the above admitted facts, it has now to be considered whether the representation has been dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India 4 The law relating to the consideration and disposal of the representation of a detenu been enunciated by the Supreme Court in various decisions. In the case of R.D. Borade v. V.K. Saraf reported in AIR 1989 SC 1861 the Supreme Court considered its earlier decisions on the point and made the following observation : - "The detenu has an independent constitutional right to make his representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Correspondingly, there is a constitutional mandate commanding the concerned authority to whom the detenu forwards his representation questioning the correctness of the detention order clamped upon him requesting for his release to consider the said representation within the reasonable dispatch and to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. This constitutional requirement must be satisfied with respect but if this, constitutional imperative is observed in breach, it would amount to negation of the constitutional obligation rendering the continued detention constitutionally impermissible and illegal, since such a breach would defeat the very concept of liberty the highly cherished right which is enshrined in Art. 21 of the Constitution, True there is no prescribed period either under the provisions of the Constitution or under the concerned detention law within which the representation should be dealt with, the use of the words "as soon as may be" occurring in Art. 22(5) of the Constitution reflect that the representation should be expeditiously considered and disposed of with due promptitude and diligence and with a sense of urgency and without avoidable delay What is reasonable dispatch depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in that regard. However in Case the gap between the receipt of the representation and its consideration by the authority is so unreasonably long and the explanation offered by the authority is so unsatisfactory, such delay could vitiate the order of detention," 5, Similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Chauhan v Union of India reported in AIR 1990 SC 1455 as would be evident from the following passages :- "Now the unchallengeable legal proposition that emerges from a host of decision a few of which we have referred to above is that a representation of a detenu whole liberty is in peril and deprived should be consideration and disposed of as expeditiously as possible; otherwise the continued detention will render itself impermissible and invalid as being violative of the constitutional obligation enshrined in Article 22(5) of the constitution and if any delay is occurred in the disposal of a representation, such delay should be explained by the appropriate authority to the satisfaction of the Court. In spite of the weighty pronouncements of this Court making the legal position clear, it is still disquieting to note that on many occasions the appropriate authorities cause considerable delay in considering and disposing of representations and also exhibit culpable indifference in explaining such delay. We feel that in case the appropriate authority is unable to explain personally the delay at various stages, then it will be desirable-indeed appropriate-for the concerned authority or authorities at whose hands the delay has occurred to individually explain such delay." 6. On examining the facts of the instant case in the light of the above statements of law, we find that the sponsoring authority at Calcutta took 20 days in sending its comments on the representation of the detenu to Delhi; and for this unusual delay, no explanation-nor to speak of satisfactory-has been offered by the detaining authority or the authority at whose hands the delay bas occurred. That necessarily means, that there bas been a breach of constitutional obligation as enshrined under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. While on this point, we may mention that in the case of R.D. Borade (supra), the Supreme Court set aside the order of detention for an unexplained delay of ten days in dealing with the representation. 7. That necessarily means, that there bas been a breach of constitutional obligation as enshrined under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. While on this point, we may mention that in the case of R.D. Borade (supra), the Supreme Court set aside the order of detention for an unexplained delay of ten days in dealing with the representation. 7. On the conclusion as above, we allow this writ petition, quash the impugned order of detention and direct that the detenu be released forth with. 8. Before we part with this record, we must mention about a disquieting feature, which we have noticed in this case. To bring home his contention that the detenu has been deprived of his constitutional right to make a proper and effective representation as the English and Hindi versions of the order and grounds of detention served upon him materially differed, the petitioner relied upon on English translation of the Hindi version of the order and grounds of detention made and certified by an official translator of this Court on March 12, 1991. From the Appellate Side Rules of this Court, we find that before the writ petition was filed, the translator, in his official capacity could not have made such translation nor give a certificate that it was a correct translation, without leave of the appropriate authority or Court. Besides, the requisite fees for such translation do not appear to have been realised. We, therefore, direct the Registrar, Appellate Side, of this Court to enquire into the matter and take such as step as may be deemed fit and proper. Haridas Das J.-I agree. Petition allowed; impugned order of detention quashed.