JUDGMENT - Dr. E.S. DA SILVA, J.:---The petitioner is the wife of the detenu who is challenging by a Writ of Cetiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution the Order of detention passed against him by the respondent No. 1 to 22nd October, 1991 under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The Order was served on the detenu on 23-10-1991 and on the same date the Grounds of Detention were also supplied to him. There are about six grounds sought to be made out by the Detaining Authority in the Order of Detention. It was subsequently confirmed on 28-10-1991 by the respondent No. 2 under sub-section (4) of section 3 of the Act. The detention has been allegedly made with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On 15th November, 1991 the detenu made a representation to the respondent No. 2 setting out the grounds for revocation of the detention order and with a request that a copy of the representation should be sent to the Central Government, the respondent No. 3, for consideration. The said representation was rejected by the respondent No. 2 by Order dated 22-11-1991. The respondent No. 3 disposed of the said representation which was also rejected only on 24-12-1991. The said order of the respondent No. 3 was communicated to the State Government, respondent No. 2, by wireless message dated 27-12-1991 but the same was communicated to the detenu only on 1-8- 1992 (sic). 2. Shri Kamat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has raised two grounds against the impugned order which, accordingly to him, is illegal, bad and without jurisdiction. The first ground advanced by Shri Kamat is that there is an inordinate delay on the part of the Central Government, respondent No. 3, to dispose of the representation of the petitioner which has not at all been explained which delay by itself vitiates the Order of Detention being violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The first ground advanced by Shri Kamat is that there is an inordinate delay on the part of the Central Government, respondent No. 3, to dispose of the representation of the petitioner which has not at all been explained which delay by itself vitiates the Order of Detention being violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The second ground sought to be made out by Shri Kamat is that all the incidents referred to in the Grounds of Detention and purportedly involving a breach of public order cannot be considered as violation of any public order but being only cases of law and order which could have been effectively dealt with by the normal criminal laws. According to Shri Kamat none of the incidents alleged to have been committed by the detenu lie in the realm of public order which could not be the foundation for an order of detention under the Act and could be cared of by the normal laws. Therefore, there was no question of any activity committed by the detenu which would cause breach of the even tempo of the community and therefore it could not be said that the order of detention was required to be passed against him in order to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 3. Elaborating the first ground of attack Shri Kamat has stated that the representation of the detenu was dated 15-11-1991 which was received by the Jailor on 15-11-1991. However the Jailor forwarded the representation of the detenu to the respondent No. 2 on 17-11-1991 without explaining the delay of one day being a fact that there was no justification for the Jailor to keep the application with him for a single day due to the proximity of the place where the representation was handed over and the place wherein the said representation had to be forwarded by the Jailor Shri Kamat has further contended that thereafter such representation was sent by the State Government to the Central Government only on 25-11-1991, that is to say, after a period of seven days. According to Shri Kamat, again this period of seven days was not at all explained by the State Government. The representation was received by the Central Government on 28-11-1991 who ultimately disposed of the said application only by Order dated 24-12-1991. According to Shri Kamat, again this period of seven days was not at all explained by the State Government. The representation was received by the Central Government on 28-11-1991 who ultimately disposed of the said application only by Order dated 24-12-1991. Before that the respondent No. 3 sought information from the respondent No. 2 by wireless message. The said representation was received by respondent No. 3 on 28-11-1991. The said information was supplied by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 3 on 5-12-1991 and after that respondent No. 3 rejected the representation on 24-12-1991, i.e. after a period of 19 days delay which delay was again not explained by the respondent No. 3. It is the further contention of Shri Kamat that after the Order rejecting the representation dated 24-12-1991 was passed the same was communicated to the State Government by wireless message only on 27-12-1991, subsequently confirmed by a letter of the same date. However, the said rejection was communicated to the detenu only on 8-1-1992, that is to say about 15 days after the rejection of the representation. This delay was also not explained by the respondent No. 3. 4. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed not only by the respondent No. 3 but also on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4. This affidavit has been sworn by the respondent No. 1 Shri Venkataratnam. In para 5 of the said affidavit he has stated on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 that the representation of the detenu dated 15-11-1991 was signed by him before the Assistant Jailor, Sub-Jail, Reis Magos only on 16-11-1991 and the same was received by the respondent No. 2 in the Home Department only on 18-11-1991 vide letter dated 17-11-1991 of the Assistant Jailor of the Sub-Jail, Reis Magos. The said representation was forwarded on the same day by the respondent No. 2 to his office for comments. The comments were forwarded by him to the respondent No. 2 on 20-11-1991. Thereupon the respondent No. 2 rejected the detenu's representation and communicated the same to the detenu vide letter dated 22-11-1991. A copy of the said representation was thereupon forwarded by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 3 along with comments on 25-11-1991. The comments were forwarded by him to the respondent No. 2 on 20-11-1991. Thereupon the respondent No. 2 rejected the detenu's representation and communicated the same to the detenu vide letter dated 22-11-1991. A copy of the said representation was thereupon forwarded by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 3 along with comments on 25-11-1991. Respondent No. 3 by letter dated 27-12-1991 addressed to the detenu and with a copy to the respondent No. 2 and the other to respondent No. 4 communicated that the Central Government and considered the representation of the detenu and had rejected the same. The said communication was served on the detenu in the Sub-Jail of Reis Magos on 8-1-1992. 5. Shri Ishwar Singh, Desk Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, in his affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 3 has stated that the representation of the detenu dated 16-11-1991 was received by the Central Government on 28-11-1991 through the respondent No. 2 and immediately processed for consideration. As it was found that certain vital information was required for its further consideration and had to be obtained from the respondent No. 2 a wireless message was sent to respondent No. 2 on the same date, i.e. 28-11-1991. This information was received by respondent No. 3 in the Ministry of Home Affairs from the respondent No. 2 only on 5-12-1991 vide State Government's wireless message of the same date. Then the said representation was immediately processed for consideration and the final decision to reject the same was taken on 24-12-1991. It was further contended in the said affidavit that the representation of the detenu along with all the required information became effectively available to the Central Government only on 5-12-1991. A final decision to reject the said representation was thereafter taken by the Central Government within 14 days of its effectively becoming available for consideration excluding six days which were closed holidays (6th, 7th, 14th, 21st and 22nd December, 1991). After the rejection of the representation the detenu was informed of the decision of the Central Government through the quickest mode of communication available i.e. a crash wireless message of 17-12-1991 through the Home Secretary, Government of Goa and through the Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Reis Magos. This message was followed by a letter dated 27-12-1991. After the rejection of the representation the detenu was informed of the decision of the Central Government through the quickest mode of communication available i.e. a crash wireless message of 17-12-1991 through the Home Secretary, Government of Goa and through the Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Reis Magos. This message was followed by a letter dated 27-12-1991. Therefore, according to the respondent No. 3, there had been absolutely no delay at any stage in the consideration of the detenu's representation or in communicating to him the final decision taken thereon. The representation of the detenu was considered most expeditiously by the Central Government and the detenu was also informed of the decision of the Central Government to reject the representation in a most expeditious manner. 6. Mr. Bhobe, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4, vehemently submitted that there was no delay or laches committed by the respondents to dispose of the representation of the detenu which, even on the part of the respondent No. 3, was decided as expeditiously as possible and, in any manner, within reasonable time. Mr. Bhobe first of all tries to explain that so far the period between the date the representation of the detenu was actually received by the State Government, i.e. 18-11-1991 (the representation although dated 15-11-1991 was affirmed by the detenu only on 16-11-1991, being 16-11-1991 and 17-11-1991 closed holidays) and 25-11-1991, the date on which the same was forwarded to the Central Government, there was no loss of time for its processing by the respondent No. 2. 7. Mr. Bhobe contended in this respect that on the same day it was received, i.e., on 18-11-1991, the State Government sent for comments on the representation from the Detaining Authority since they were supposed to forward the representation to the Central Government along with the said comments. The actual comments were received by the State Government on along with the said comments. The actual comments were received by the State Government on 20-11-1991. On 21-11-1991 it was Restricted Holiday while 23-11-1991 and 24-11-1991 were also closed holidays (being Saturday and Sunday). The actual comments were received by the State Government on along with the said comments. The actual comments were received by the State Government on 20-11-1991. On 21-11-1991 it was Restricted Holiday while 23-11-1991 and 24-11-1991 were also closed holidays (being Saturday and Sunday). Hence the representation with the comments was forwarded to the Central Government only on 25-11-1991 and as such there was no unreasonable delay at all in sending the representation because; at the most, if there was a delay this was not more than one day, even assuming that 21-11-1991 being a Restricted Holiday was not to be treated as closed holiday. 8. We are therefore, satisfied in view of this explanation of Shri Bhobe, otherwise not seriously contested by Shri Kamat, that in the aforesaid circumstances it could not be said that there was initial delay on the part of the State Government either of seven or at least of five days as contended by Shri Kamat to forward the representation of the detenu to the Central Government. 9. It was further urged by Mr. Bhobe with regard to the time taken by the State Government to dispose of the representation, that the same having been forwarded by the State Government on 25-11-1991 it was actually received by the respondent No. 3 in New Delhi only on 28-11-1991. However, since the Central Government felt that there was need of certain clarifications the same were sought from the State Government on the same date by wireless message dated 28-11-1991. These informations were collected by the State Government from the Detaining Authority and forwarded to the Central Government on 2-12-1991. But since certain clarifications regarding dates had been wrongly mentioned by inadvertence in the communication dated 2-11-1991 another wireless message followed which was sent to the Central Government on 5-11-1991 with all the corrected informations. Thereafter the Central Government rejected the representation of the detenu on 24-12-1991. There was thus a gap of 19 days between the date the representation was ripe for consideration before the Central Government, i.e., 5-12-1991 and the date it was disposed of, i.e., 24-12-1991. However, since there were six holidays in between, namely, 7th, 8th, 14th, 15th, 21st and 22nd December, 1991, the gap became reduced to 13 days only which was the time taken by the Central Government to decide on the merits of the representation and to reject it. 10. However, since there were six holidays in between, namely, 7th, 8th, 14th, 15th, 21st and 22nd December, 1991, the gap became reduced to 13 days only which was the time taken by the Central Government to decide on the merits of the representation and to reject it. 10. In the affidavit presented by the respondent No. 3 it has been stated by Mr.. Ishwar Singh, on behalf of the Central Government, that a final decision to reject the representation of the detenu was taken by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs within 14 days of its effectivity becoming available for consideration. Mr. Bhobe in his turn has submitted that this period was spent to process the representation and to dispose of the same by the Central Government. 11. It is impossible to accept as good and reasonable the explanation that a period of two weeks was in fact necessary for the Central Government to decide on the fate of the representation of the detenu and we are therefore not satisfied with the explanation given that such a long time was in fact required for its processing and adjudication. We are firmly inclined to believe that there is a clear case of inordinate delay to dispose of the representation, either by sheer negligence or mere inadvertence, which has remained totally unexplained. 12. But there is more. Once the representation was rejected on 14-12-1991, admittedly, the first communication about this rejection was flashed by wireless message to the State Government on 27-12-1991, i.e. after a period of 3 days which was also not explained. There upon this rejection was communicated to the detenu only on 8-1-1992, again, after a lapse of 12 days. Hence the period of time consumed between the rejection of the representation on 24-12-1991 and the communication of the rejection to the detenu was of clear 15 days which also is left to be explained. There was not even an attempt, either on the part of the Central Government or of the State Government, to explain this inordinate gap of 15 days to communicate to the detenu the fact of the rejection of his representation. There was not even an attempt, either on the part of the Central Government or of the State Government, to explain this inordinate gap of 15 days to communicate to the detenu the fact of the rejection of his representation. It is a matter of deep regret and concern for us to see that the constitutional mandate regarding earliest adjudication of the representation in case of preventive detention and its communication to the detenu appears to have been grossly overlooked by the concerned Authorities leading to vitiation of the Order of Detention in this case. We are extremely unhappy while recording the facts emerging out from this unfortunate exercise. It follows therefore, that a delay of 13 plus 15 days, in a total of 28 days, to decide and communicate to the detenu about the outcome of his representation was not able to be reasonably explained by the Central Government in the present case. 13. In his aforesaid affidavit Mr. Ishwar Singh, on behalf of the Central Government, has further stated that "the detenu was informed of the decision of the Central Government through the quickest mode of communication available, viz., a crash wireless message, on 27-12-1991 through the Home Secretary, Government of Goa and the Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Reis Magos, Goa". This message was followed by letter of 27-12-1991. According to him the representation of the detenu was considered most expeditiously by the Central Government and the detenu was also informed of the decision of the Central Government most expeditiously. There has been absolutely no delay at any stage on the part of the Central Government in the consideration of the representation from the detenu and in communicating the final decision taken thereon to the detenu. 14. Unfortunately the record shows that this does not appear to be so and most on the contrary the facts disclosed reveal that a long delay of 28 days remained totally unexplained by the Authorities of the Central Government. In the further affidavit of the State Government it has been stated, at its paragraphs 3 and 4, that the Central Government rejected the representation of the detenu, as communicated vide their letter dated 27-12-1991, received on 8-1-1992. The Central Government also sent a wireless message dated 27-12-1991 informing the State Government that the representation was rejected and that the detenu should be communicated and that the letter would follow. The Central Government also sent a wireless message dated 27-12-1991 informing the State Government that the representation was rejected and that the detenu should be communicated and that the letter would follow. However, the Superintendent of the Central Jail did not receive any such wireless message and the detenu was only informed, vide letter of the State Government dated 8-1-1992, that the Central Government has rejected his representation. 15. The net result of this affidavit permits us to comfortably draw the conclusion that the apparent lack of coordination between the Central Government and the State government in the matter of communication of the rejection of the detenu's representation on 24-12-1991 led to the delayed intimation to the detenu by the State Government of its rejection only on 8-1-1992. Any how in our view the fact of the long delay of 28 days as far as the detenu is concerned, remained without any reasonable explanation or acceptable justification in the eye of law, being this fact obviously violative of the peremptory mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. 16. In the case of (Rama Dhondu Borade v. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police and others)1, 1989 Cri. Law Journal S.C. 2119, it has been observed that 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 and requesting for his release to consider the said representation within the 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 Court further observed that if there is no prescribed period either under the provisions of the Constitution or under the concerned detention law, i.e. N.S.A., within which the representation should be dealt with, however, the use of the words "as soon as may be" occurring in Article 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. 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. This was a case where the gap between the receipt and the disposal of the representation by the Central Government was 28 days, exactly as in our case, and the Court held on fact that there was inordinate and unreasonable delay and the explanation given was not satisfactory and acceptable and the detention was invalid. 17. Shri Bhobe has relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court wherein it has been held that the delay on the part of the concerned authorities to consider the representation of the detenu was not by itself fatal and inspite of that the Order of Detention was upheld in both the cases. The first is the case (Madan Lal Anand v. Union of India and others)2, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 176, wherein it has been observed that the time imperative can never be absolute or obsessive and that the occasional observations made by the Supreme Court that each day's delay in dealing with the representation must be adequately explained are meant to emphasise the expedition with which the representation must be considered. However, in our opinion this ruling which clearly refers to a case in which each and every day of delay was explained and justified by the concerned authorities is not attracted in the present case wherein, after all the deductions and concessions, a net delay of 28 days remained absolutely unexplained by the Central Government. 18. Similarly the further reliance placed by Shri Bhobe on another decision of the Supreme Court in (Abdul Salam alias Thiyyan v. Union of India and others)3, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1446, does not seem to take the respondents' case any further. It is true that the said ruling refers to a case of a representation which was disposed of within a long period of one month and five days. But in that case, as it happened in the previous decision, each and every day was reasonably and convincingly explained by the authorities. It is true that the said ruling refers to a case of a representation which was disposed of within a long period of one month and five days. But in that case, as it happened in the previous decision, each and every day was reasonably and convincingly explained by the authorities. The Court expressly pointed out that on facts and from the explanation given by the Central Government it could be said that the representation was considered most expeditiously and there was no "negligence or callous inaction or avoidable red tapism". 19. These observations by themselves show that the facts and circumstances of that case are totally different from our case wherein, as it was repeatedly pointed out, the concerned Authorities were not in a position to reasonable explain or justify the inordinate delay 28 days which appears to be due either to the negligence or indifference on the part of the concerned Authorities of the Central Government in strictly complying with the imperative mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Hence this second ruling cited by Shri Bhobe is also not helpful for the respondents and certainly not applicable in the instant case. 20. In the circumstances we are of the view that the unexplained delay of 28 days on the part of the Central Government to dispose of the representation of the detenu, inspite of all the adjustments and deductions liberally concerned by us, amounts no doubt to clear breach of the mandatory principle enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution and irremediably vitiating the Order of Detention dated 22-10-1991. Hence on this ground alone the said Order is liable to be set aside. 21. Being so and consequent upon our finding in respect of the first ground of delay and laches raised by the petitioner, we do not think it necessary to deal with the other arguments advanced by Shri Kamat with regard to the question of incidents referred to in the Grounds of Detention being or not in the nature of disturbance of public order and incidents concerning all to cases of breach of law and order only. We therefore refrain from explaining our opinion on this aspect since this is not at all required for the disposal of this petition. 22. In the result we allow this petition and make the Rule absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (b). We therefore refrain from explaining our opinion on this aspect since this is not at all required for the disposal of this petition. 22. In the result we allow this petition and make the Rule absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (b). We further direct the respondent No. 1 to release the detenu forthwith unless he is required in any other case. Petition allowed. -----