JUDGMENT (ORAL) R.G. Sindhakar, J. - The petitioner challenges the order of detention dated 14th January 1991 issued by respondent No.1 under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1981, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The grounds of detention were also served on the detenu on the same day i.e. 14-1-1991. It is this order dated 14-1-1991 which has been clamped on the petitioner i.e. the subject matter of this petition. 2. Earlier on 18th of July 1990, it is an admitted position, that respondent No.1 had issued similar order of detention under Section 3(2) of the Act against the detenu. However, the State of Maharashtra Respondent No.2 herein, revoked that order on 11th January 1991 and subsequently on 14th January 1991 issued the impugned order. 3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on several grounds. One of the grounds on which he attacks the order is unexplained delay caused in considering his representation both by the State as well as the Central Government and according to him his fundamental right to have the representation expeditiously considered by the authorities concerned has been thereby violated, affecting this continued detention under the impugned detention order. He therefore filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seeks quashing of the order dated 14th January 1991. 4. It is necessary to state few facts in order to enable one to appreciate the point raised on behalf of the petitioner about the delay in considering his representation. They are as follows: 5. Two representations were made by the petitioner through his advocate and they are dated 4th February 1991 (there is a mistake in the petition and it has been incorrectly mentioned as 4th January 1991). It is the case of the petitioner that till he filed his petition on 20th February 1991 he did not learn as to what had happened to his representations. It appears from the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents that this representation was finally rejected and the rejection was communicated to the petitioner on 21st March 1991. It is the case of the petitioner that till he filed his petition on 20th February 1991 he did not learn as to what had happened to his representations. It appears from the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents that this representation was finally rejected and the rejection was communicated to the petitioner on 21st March 1991. From the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Central Government it appears that after the receipt of the representations on 6th February 1991, crash message was sent on 7th February 1991 calling for the information from the detaining authority i.e. the State Government and that information from the Commissioner of Police, who issued the impugned order, was received, though dated 26th February 1991, on 4th March 1991. Final decision to reject the representation was taken on 19th March 1991 and according to the respondent-Union of India, same was communicated by crash message on 20th March 1991. The contention of the petitioner therefore is that the consideration of his representation has been unreasonably delayed by the Central Government. 6. At this stage it may be stated that one of the limps of arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that there has been delay on the part of the State Government too in considering his representation. It is an admitted position that the representation dated 4th February 1991 was received by the State Government on 5th February 1991 and it is also an admitted position that the same was rejected on 15th February 1991 and communicated on 16th February 1991. It is therefore urged on behalf of the State that so far as the representation addressed to it is concerned, it has been dealt with expeditiously and properly and, therefore, there are no lapses on the part of the State Government in that behalf. It is also contended on behalf of the State that so far as the enquiry by the Central Government is concerned, after receipt of the message adequate steps were taken to collect the information required by the Central Government and the same was promptly communicated. It is also contended and in our opinion rightly that the Commissioner of Police gave necessary information called for and it was dispatched on 26th February 1991. The State Government had also communicated further material required by the Central Government on 20th February 1991. It is also contended and in our opinion rightly that the Commissioner of Police gave necessary information called for and it was dispatched on 26th February 1991. The State Government had also communicated further material required by the Central Government on 20th February 1991. Therefore on the point of supply of adequate information to the Central Government to deal with the representation effectively, made by the petitioner, there has been no lapses which could be attributed to the State Government We are inclined to accept for the reasons stated above that there has been no delay on the part of the State Government in considering the representation made to it by the petitioner and also in supplying necessary material and information to the Central Government for dealing effectively expeditiously with the representation that has been made to the Central Government. The point on which there has been considerable debate during the course of the hearing of this petition is whether the Central Government could be accused of having delayed the consideration of the representation of the petitioner and as to whether there has been a satisfactory and adequate explanation for that delay on the part of the Central Government. 7. The petitioner's counsel vehemently argues that his contention that there has been delay and that has been unexplained, must prevail. In this connection he relies upon the decision in the case of Rama Dhondu Borade v. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police Ors. 1. There a precise question as to the delay on the part of the Central Government while considering the representaiton made to it and the explanation offered therefor and its effect arose for consideration. In this decision a reference has been made and reliance has been placed upon an earlier decision in the case of Smt. Shalini Soni v. Union of lndia2. The observations made in that judgment have been quoted with approval and they are to the following effect: “Quite obviously, the obligation imposed on the detaining authority, by Article 22(5) of the Constitution, to afford to the detenu the earliest opportunity of making a representation, carries with it the imperative implication that the representation shall be considered at the earliest opportunity. Since all the constitutional protection that a detenu can claim is the little that is afforded by the procedural safeguards prescribed by Article 22(5) read with Article 19, the courts have a duty to rigidly insist that preventive detention procedures be fair and strictly observed. A breach of the procedural imperative must lead to the release of the detenu." The proposition dcilucible from the various reported decisions of this court have been stated in para 19 of the judgment in Rama Dhondu Borade's case. It is observed as under: "The detenu has an independent constitutional right to make his representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 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 and requesting for his release, to consider the said representation within reasonable dispatch and to dispose 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 Article 21 of the Constitution". Applying this test, the court in Rama Dhondu Borade's case observed in para 10 as under: "In attemptihg to explain the delay from October 17, 1988 to October 27, 1988 it is stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent 3 that October 18,20,22, and 23, 1988 were the closed holidays; but no explanation is given as to why the representation was not attended to and disposed of on October 17, 19,21,24 to 26. In explaining the delay in communicating the decision taken on October 27, 1988 it is stated that October 29 and 30 were holidays but the affidavit is silent as to why that decision had not been communicated to the detenu either on October 27 or 28, 1988". It therefore appears that if there has been delay and that remains unexplained, the order of detention issued against which representation has been made, is liable to be struck down. It therefore appears that if there has been delay and that remains unexplained, the order of detention issued against which representation has been made, is liable to be struck down. It was urged on behalf of the S tate that the decision in Rama Dhondu Borade' s and other earlier authorities on the point, have been considered by the Supreme Court in its later decisions and the rule has been to the considerable extent, diluted and it is necessary to find out, according to the learned counsel for the Union of India, whether there has been negligence or callousness on the part of the Government in dealing with the representation made. The authorities relied upon in this connection are (1) A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1446 -Abdul Salam Thiyyan v. Union of India Ors. (2) A.I.R.1990 S.C. 176 -Mad'an Lal Anand v. Union of India Ors., (3) A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 2222 - M. Mohammed Sultan v. The Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Finance Department Ors. and (4) A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 574 - K.M. Abdulla Kunni Anr. v. Union of India Ors. 8. It is found on a careful consideration of these decisions on which reliance has been placed, that the rule continues to be the same i.e. that the Government must deal with the representation of the detenu expeditiously and communicate to him the decision as expeditiously as expected. The unexplained delay on the part of the Government is fatal and would vitiate the order of detention. Here in this case it was also urged that there has been no delay on the part of the State Government and that whatever delay was there, was on the part of the Central Government, which was not the detaining authority. In our opinion that would not make any difference to the conclusion which is arrived at earlier. The Central Government was also under obligation to explain the delay and explain it satisfactorily. In this connection, therefore a reference could be made to the affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Government. In para 4 of the affidavit filed by Ishwar Singh Desk Officer. Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India. New Delhi on behalf of the Union of India this is what has been stated: "That the required information was received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 4-31991 vide the Commissioner of Police. In para 4 of the affidavit filed by Ishwar Singh Desk Officer. Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India. New Delhi on behalf of the Union of India this is what has been stated: "That the required information was received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 4-31991 vide the Commissioner of Police. Greater Bombay's letter dated 26-21991. That the said representation from the petitioner was immediately processed for consideration and final decision to reject it was taken on 19-3-1991.” This decision was communicated on 21-31991. In para 5 it has been stated that the representation from the petitioner alongwith all the required information became effectively available to the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs for consideration only on 4-3-1991. Therefore there is no explanation of whatsoever nature offered by the Central Government in the affidavit as to why the representation was not dealt with after its receipt on 4-3-1991 till 19-3-1991 and why the said decision was not communicated till 21- 3-1991. Therefore, there is total lack of any explanation much less satisfactory explanation about the delay caused by the Central Government in dealing with the representation of the petitioner against the order of detention. Therefore it becomes difficult to accept the contention raised on behalf of the Central Government that it was dealt with expeditiously. In the circumstances the continued detention of the petitioner becomes illegal and is liable to struck down. Rule is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the petition. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Petition allowed. 1. (1989) 3 S.C.C. 173 . 2. 1981 S.C.C. (Cri) 38.