Dr B. P. Saraf, J. The writ petitioner is the father of Zamkhochinthang alias Thathang who was detained under section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988 (herein­after'the Act') on 30.6.1990 in pursuance of the order dated 18.6.1990 of the Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, Imphal. By this writ petition the validity of the aforesaid detention older is challenged. Heard Mr. N. Kumarjit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. The detention order has been challenged mainly on two grounds. First, that the grounds of detention and documents were furnished to the detenu in English and not in Manipuri language. His contention is that the detenu had read only upto Class I and he cannot read and write English. Secondly, there was unreasonable delay in disposal of the representation filed by the detenu. The time taken in disposal of the representation, according to the learned counsel, is 40 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. Mr. K. Irabot Singh, learned Government Advocate submits that though his representation is dated 19.7.1990 it was received from the Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal on 25.7.1990 and it was forwarded to the Central Government on 27.7.1990. It is further submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the detenu was informed about the rejection of his representation on 27.8.1990. Thus, according to the Government Advocate, the time taken in disposal of the representation is reasonable and just. We have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel of the parties. The admitted position is that the grounds and relevant documents were served on the detenu in English. No translated copy was served on the detenu. The only defence taken on behalf of the Government on this count is that the original grounds and documents were read to him at the time of service in the language known to him that is Manipuri. We are not satisfied with the explanation of the State on this count. We do not think that reading the grounds of detention and the documents can be a substitute to the require­ment of communication of the same to the detenu. We are not satisfied with the explanation of the State on this count. We do not think that reading the grounds of detention and the documents can be a substitute to the require­ment of communication of the same to the detenu. It is impossible for any person of any intellect, not to speak of any person of the academic standard of the detenu to keep in mind all the grounds of detention and the contents of the various documents read to him so as to prepare a proper representation on that basis. It is because of this reason that it is incumbent on the part of the detaining authority to furnish translated copies thereof to the detenu. That admittedly was not done in this case. This failure on the part of the Govern­ment is definitely fatal to the detention as was held by the Supreme Court in Tsering Dolkar vs. Administrator, U.T.Delhi, AIR 1987 SC 1192 and this Ccurt in Hina Khan vs. Superintendent, Gauhati District Jail, (1989) 2 GLR 253 [1989 (2) GLJ 371]. We, therefore, hold accordingly. So far as the delay of 40 days in disposal of the representation and its effect on the validity of detention is concerned, the submission of the learned Government Advocate is 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. On facts, his submission is that the disposal of the representation was delayed because the file had to go from officer to officer which naturally took some time. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. There is no dispute about the fact that there in no time 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 decisions of the Supreme Court in Harish Pahwa vs. State of U. P., AIR 1981 SC 1126 and Saleh Mohammed vs. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 428 and the decisions of this Court in Hina Khna vs. Superin­tendent, Gauhati District Jail, (1989) 2 GLR 253 [1989 (2) GLJ 371]. Reference may be made in this connection to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Harish Pahwa vs. State of U. P., AIR 1981 SC 1126 and Saleh Mohammed vs. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 428 and the decisions of this Court in Hina Khna vs. Superin­tendent, Gauhati District Jail, (1989) 2 GLR 253 [1989 (2) GLJ 371]. All those decisions have been discussed by us elaborately in our judgment delivered today in Civil Rule (HC) 7 of 1990 (Imphal Bench) [1991 (1) GLJ 449] wherein following those decisions we have held that undue delay in disposal of representation would vitiate the detention. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of the foregoing discussion, it is abundantly clear that there is no justification for the long delay of 40 days in disposal of the representation. It has vitiated the detention order. In view of the foregoing discussion, on the twin ground of failure to furnish the grounds of detention and copies of the documents to the detenu in the language known to him and undue delay in disposal of the repre­sentation, we quash the impugned order of detention and direct the respondents to release the detenu forthwith.