B.P. Saraf, J. — The writ petitioner is the wife of one Laiphrakpam Ibotombi Singh who was detained under section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'the Act') on 19.6.1990 under orders of the Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur. He is still under detention. By this writ petition the validity of the aforesaid detention order is challenged. 2. Heard Mr. N. Kumarjit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the detention order has been challenged on various grounds, the main thrust of the challenge is on the ground of unreasonable long delay in disposal of the representation filed by the detenu. The time taken in disposal of the representation, according to the learned counsel, is 71 days. It is submitted that such a long delay is most unreasonable and cannot be justified on any count. The continued detention under the circumstances it is contended, is illegal. 3. Mr. L. Shyarakishore Singh, learned counsel for the Government, submits that the time taken in the disposal of the representation is not 71 days, but 59 days. He submits that though the representation was dared 12.9.1990, it was received by the Superintendent of the Jail only on 24.9.1990. This period of 59 days, according to the counsel, is not such unreasonable delay which might vitiate the detention. 4. Before we consider the rival submissions, the relevant facts in regard to the representation of the detenu may be briefly stated. The detenu made a representation to the Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur. The said representation was sent through the Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Imaphal. The representation is dated 12.9.1990. The Superintendent of Jail forwarded the same to the Secretary (Home) on 24.9.1990. The State Government forwarded a copy of the representation to the Central Gover­nment on 30.10.1990. The representation was rejected by the State Government on 21.II. 1990. All those facts are admitted. The only dispute is in regard to the submission of the representation to the Superintendent of Jail. For this purpose we have seen the original representation. There is no endorsement of the Superintendent, Central Jail on the body of the representation in regard to its date of receipt. What is visible from the representation is that it was forwarded by the Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail on 24.9.1990. 5. For this purpose we have seen the original representation. There is no endorsement of the Superintendent, Central Jail on the body of the representation in regard to its date of receipt. What is visible from the representation is that it was forwarded by the Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail on 24.9.1990. 5. We do not propose to enter into the controversy regarding the date of receipt of the representation by the Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail because even on the facts admitted by the Government, the time taken for disposal of the representation in this case is 59 days. The learned Gover­nment Advocate submits that there is no hard and fast rule in regard to time within which the representation should be disposed. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. His farther submission is that the disposal of the representation was delayed because the file had to go from Secretary to Secretary which naturally took some time. 6. We have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also considered the explanation given by the learned Government Advocate for the delay. There is no dispute about the fact that there is no limit fixed for disposal of representation. But equally undisputed is the well-settled law on the subject that the representation of a detenu should be considered and disposed with utmost expedition. There should be no avoidable delay. Reference may be made in this connection to the decision of the Supreme Court in Harish Pahwa vs. State of U.P., AIR 1981 SC 1126 where it was observed : "... We may make it clear, as we have done on numerous earlier occa­sions, that this Court does not look with equanimity upon such delays when the liberty of a person is concerned. Calling comments from other departments seeking the opinion of Secretary after Secretary and allowing the representation to lie without being attended to is not the type of action which the State is expected to take in a matter of such vital import. Calling comments from other departments seeking the opinion of Secretary after Secretary and allowing the representation to lie without being attended to is not the type of action which the State is expected to take in a matter of such vital import. We would emphasise that it is the duty of the State to proceed to determine representation of the character above mentioned with the utmost expedition, which means that the matter must be taken up for consideration as such a representation is received and dealt with contin­uously (unless it is absolutely necessary to wait for some assistance in connection with it) until a final decision is taken and communicated to the detenu". Failure to do so, it was held, will render the detention unconstitutional. 7. To the same effect is the following observation of the Supreme Court in Salah Mohammed vs. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 428 : "Times out of number, this Court has 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 promptitude lest the safeguards provided in Article 22(5) of the Constitution and the statute concerned should be stultified and rendered meaningless " 8. This aspect of the matter was also considered by this Court in a recent decision in the case of Hina Khan vs. Superintendent, Gauhati District Jail (1S89) 2 GLR 253 [1989 (2) GLJ 371]. It was also a case of detention under prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psycho tropic Substance Act, 1988. In this case the time taken for disposal of the representation was 34 days. This Court held the period of 34 days as unreasonable delay. While arriving at this decision, the Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in S.k. Rasbid vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1973 SC 824 where time taken for consideration of the representation was 26 days and it was held by the Supreme Court to be delay which vitiated the detention order. The Court also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Vinay Kumar Verma vs. Union of India, 1986 (Supp) SCC 528 where the delay of 45 days was held to be unreasonable. The Court also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Vinay Kumar Verma vs. Union of India, 1986 (Supp) SCC 528 where the delay of 45 days was held to be unreasonable. On consideration of the aforesaid authorities, in Hina Khan (supra) it was held by this Court that the delay of 34 days in disposal of the representation was unreasonable and it vitiated the detention order. 9. Considering the facts of the present case in the light of the fore­going discussion, it is abundantly clear that there is no justification in this case for the long delay of the 59 days in disposal of the representation. Such undue delay has vitiated the detention order. Under such circumstances, we are left with no option than to quash the impugned order of detention which we accordingly do. The respondents are directed to release the detenu forthwith.