ORAL JUDGMENT R.G. Sindhakar, J. - The petitioner challenges the order of detention dated 31-1-1991 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, Respondent No.1, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. The grounds of detention were also served upon the detenu the same day. The order of detention is at Exh. C and the grounds of detention at Exh. D. It has to be stated that the earlier order dated 7th December 1990, annexure 'A' issued under the said provisions of Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, was clamped on the detenu, but that order came to be revoked under the orders of Respondent No.2, the State of Maharashtra, on 28th January 1991. The challenge is now to the order dated 31st January 1991. 2. The petitioner has raised several grounds and one of the grounds urged on his behalf by Mr. Tripathi is to be found in clause 2(v) of the petition. He has stated therein that he made a representation to the State Government as well as the Central Government and the same was not expeditiously dealt with by either of the Governments and that has violated his fundamental right to have his representation expeditiously, dealt with and, therefore, the order of detention impugned in this petition is vitiated and liable to be struck down. For enabling one to understand this point, it may be necessary to state the relevant dates. The representation is dated 8th February 1991. It was addressed to the Central Government as well as the State Government. It was received by the office of the State Government on the same day and came to be rejected under the orders of the Hon'ble Minister on 15th February 1991. 3. So far as the Central Government is concerned, the representation was sent on 11th February 1991 and was received by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 13th February 1991. Some information was found necessary and, therefore, it was called for by a crash message dated 14th February 1991. The Commissioner of Police viz., the detaining authority in this case, by his letter dated 22nd March 1991 sent the necessary replies to the queries made. On 6th Aprii 1991, deciston to reject the representation was taken by the Central Government and was in fact rejecting on 9th April 1991. The communication rejecting the same was also sent on the same day. 4. On 6th Aprii 1991, deciston to reject the representation was taken by the Central Government and was in fact rejecting on 9th April 1991. The communication rejecting the same was also sent on the same day. 4. So far as the State Government is concerned, an affidavit has been filed on their behalf by Shri Kelkar, the Desk, Officer. He has, in his affidavit, stated that the representation was received on the same day i.e. 8th February 1991 addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and was examined and it was submitted to the Minister of State for Home who was pleased to reject the same on 15th February i991. It was communicated to the learned Advocate of the detenu on 16th February 1991. 5. So far as the Central Government is conerned, Ishwar Singh, Desk Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs has sworn his affidavit on 18th April 1991 and has been tendered in this Court today. The relevant, assertion in the petition on the point of representation and delay in disposal have been dealt within this affidavit filed by Shri Ishwar Singh. It is not in dispute that the representation was received by the Central Government on 11 th February 1991 and has been disposed of on 16th April 1991, the communication thereof having been sent on 9th April 1991. The point that, therefore, arises for consideration is whether the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that it has not been expeditiously dealt with or in other words that there has been a delay on the part of the Central Government in dealing with his representation and in disposing of the same deserves to be accepted. It has to be noted that it is for the Central Government to explain the time that has been taken by it to deal with and dispose of the representation made by the detenu against his order of detention. It is needless to say that in the said consideration and action that there be any delay, the same has to be satisfactorily explained by the Central and the State Governments. In this case, apart from the bald assertion about the date on which it was received and the date on which it was disposed of mentioning the holidays in between nothing has been done by the Central Government to explain why it took So much of time. In this case, apart from the bald assertion about the date on which it was received and the date on which it was disposed of mentioning the holidays in between nothing has been done by the Central Government to explain why it took So much of time. It is pertinent to note that the duty cast upon the Central and the State Government to deal with the representation expeditiously and promptly has not been carried out in this particular case. It has to be noted that the earlier order of detention was passed on 7th December 1990 and which came to be revoked on 28th January 1991. It was the second order of detention that was challenged by the detenu and against which he had made representation. It was, therefore, incumbent upon both the Governments viz., State and the Central to attend to it promptly and if they had any difficulty in dealing with the same, to explain the Court the reason that caused the delay. Unfortunately this has not been done. In the circumstances, on the sole ground that there has been delay in disposal of the representation and that it has not been expeditiously dealt with leading to the deprivation of right of the petitioner to have it so done, the order of detention is liable to be struck down and which we hereby do. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The petitioner is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. Petition allowed.