H. K. Sema, J - The detenu Md. Tayeb Ali, resident of Yairipok Ningthounai Village, PS Lamlai, District Imphal, Manipur was detained on 19.10.91 under section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Tarffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. This habeas corpus petition is filed by the spouse of the detenu. 2. The detenu was arrested on 19.10.91 by the police personnel and when the detenu was lodged in Manipur Central Jail, he was served with a copy of the detention order dated 17.10. 91 issued by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). Thereafter on 20.10.91 the detenu was served with a copy of the grounds of detention order dated 17.10.91 passed by the respondent No. 3. In paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention, the detenu was informed that he has a right to make representation to the Central/State Government through the Jail Superintendent against the order of detention and that he shall be afforded earliest opportunity of making representation if he wish to do so. The detenu thereafter submitted a representation dated 26.10.91 (Annexure 5). This representation of detenu as appeared from the record was received by the Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail on 28.10.91. Curiously enough the said representation of the detenu was forwarded to the Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur only on 7.11.91 by the Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail after a delay of 12 days. The detention order of the detenu was confirmed on 10.12.91 after submission of report by the Advisory Board. The case of the petitioner is that the representation of the detenu was never considered properly and that the delay on the part of the Government of Manipur to consider the representation submitted by the detenu vitiates the detention order. 3. We have heard Mr. Th. Priyananda Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. Irabot Singh, Additional Govt. Advocate, Manipur. 4 The only point urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was a delay of about 31 days to consider the representation made by the detenu and that the said representation was considered by the respondents in casual and cavalier manner. 5. Irabot Singh, Additional Govt. Advocate, Manipur. 4 The only point urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was a delay of about 31 days to consider the representation made by the detenu and that the said representation was considered by the respondents in casual and cavalier manner. 5. By now the law is well settled by the Apex Court as well as by this Court in a number of judicial pronouncements that where life and liberty of an individual is curtailed under a law of preventive detention without trial the representation, if any, made by him must be attended to, dealt with, and consider with utmost care and dispose of expsditiously so that the safeguards provided in Article 22 (5) of the Constitution are not rendered meaningless. In Mrs. Hina Khan vs. Superintendent, Gauhati District Jail, Gauhati & others, 1989 (2) GLR 253 [1991(2) GLJ 371] following the principle in SK. Rashid vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1973 SC 124 in which there was delay of 26 days in considering the representation. The Apex Court had held the delay vitiated the detention order. In Vinay Kumar Verma vs. Union of India & others, (1986) Supp SCC 528, there was a delay of 45 days and the Apex Court took the same view. In Saleh Mahammad vs. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 428 ( AIR 1981 SC 111 ) in which there was a delay of 22 days in considering the representation of the detenu meet similar fate. Following the above principle laid down by the Apex Court, this Court quashed the detention order on the ground that there was a delay of 34 days in disposing of the representation by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Piara Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 2377 where the Apex Court had held that the delay in dealing with the representation of the petitioner vitiates the detention order. Our attention has also been drawn to a decision of the Apex Court in Harish Pahwa vs. State of UP, AIR 1981 SC 1126 where it has been pointed out that the Court does not look with the equanimity upon the delays in considering the representation of the detenu. Our attention has also been drawn to a decision of the Apex Court in Harish Pahwa vs. State of UP, AIR 1981 SC 1126 where it has been pointed out that the Court does not look with the equanimity upon the delays in considering the representation of the detenu. Where the liberty of a person is involved it is the duty of the State to determine his representation with the utmost expedition and deal with it continuously until a final decision is taken and communicated to the detenu. 6. Now let us examine the case in hand in the light of the decision of the Apex Court and this Court referred to above. Admittedly, the detenu made the representation on 26.10.91 and the same as would appeared from the record, appears to have been received on 28.10.91 by the Jailor, Manipur Central Jail. The detenu at the relevant time was lodged in Manipur Central Jail. We do not understand as to how the representation of the petitioner takes 2 days to reach the Jailor, Manipur Central Jail situated in the same complex. Bs that as it may the said representation of the detenu which have been received on 28.10.91 was forwarded by the Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail to the Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur only on 7.11.91. Thus, there was a clear 12 days, the representation of the detenu was lying unattended in the office of the Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal The respondents had filed the affidavit-in-opposition and in paragraph 8 of the said affidavit respondents had admitted the receipt of representation by the Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail on 28.10.91 but it was silent as to when it was forwarded to the respondent and when the said representation was received by the respondent/Government. The only thing stated is that the Government of Manipur, Home Department finally rejected the representation of the detenu by an order dated 22.11.91, the order of which was acknowledged by the detenu on 25.11.91. In the said paragraph of the affidavit-in-opposition not even an attempt has been made to explain as to why no action was taken on the representation submitted by the detenu from 27th October, 1991 to 21st November, 1991. In our view this inordinate delay in consi­dering the representation of the detenu vitiates the detention order. 7. Mr. In the said paragraph of the affidavit-in-opposition not even an attempt has been made to explain as to why no action was taken on the representation submitted by the detenu from 27th October, 1991 to 21st November, 1991. In our view this inordinate delay in consi­dering the representation of the detenu vitiates the detention order. 7. Mr. Irabot Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that where respondent Government has spent certain time in enquiries as to the circumstances in which the detention was found necessary, the previous history of the person detained, the time so spent before deciding the representation of the detenu does not constitute delay. In support of his submission, he has drawn our attention to the decision of Apex Court in Nagendra Nath Mandal vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC 665 . The analogy of that case may not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case because in that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court had made observation on the ground that Government may not be able to reach a proper conclusion within a short time especially, in a case where another authority, the District Magistrate, had passed the questioned order. There­fore, it was necessary for the Government to make enquiries as to the situation in the locality, the circumstances in which detention was found necessary, the previous history of the person detained etc. But the facts of the present case completely stands on a different footing. In the present case the detention order was passed by the Home Secretary of the Government of Manipur. The ground of detention and the previous history of the person detained was issued by the Home Secretary to the Government of Manipur alongwith the detention order and as such there was no occasion for the respondent-Government to make a detailed enquiry before the representation of the detenu could be disposed of. 8. Next Mr. Irabot Singh submits that where representation of the detenu was considered at the different level of the Government, time so taken in considering the representation cannot constitute the delay. In this connection, the learned counsel has drawn our attention to a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Smti Asha Keshavrao Bhosle vs. Union of India & others, AIR 1986 SC 283 . In this connection, the learned counsel has drawn our attention to a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Smti Asha Keshavrao Bhosle vs. Union of India & others, AIR 1986 SC 283 . The facts of this case is however stands completely on different footing with facts of the case in hand and is of no assistance to the respondents case. In that case a detailed representation was made by the Secretary, Khed Taluka Marath Seva Sangh which expoused the cause of the detenu and challenged the detention. That representation was received on 29th November, 1984 in the Secretariat of the Chief Minister. It was forwarded to the Home Department on 3rd December, 1984 and disposed of expeditiously on 12th December, 1984. The rejection of that representation was communicated on 13th December, 1984. The High Court, which dis­missed the petition of the detenu has considered the contents of both the representation and held that the representation made by the petitioner was the second one and based on the same grounds which was disposed earlier and delay in disposing of the representation made by the petitioner subsequently did not prejudice the case of detention. This conclusion of the High Court was confirmed by the Apex Court in the case (supra). Therefore, the facts of that case is not comparable to the facts of the case in hand. 9. Lastly, it was urged before us by the learned counsel for the respon­dents that the petitioner had not raised in the writ petition about the delay in disposal of the representation and as such the same cannot be allowed to be raised at the time of hearing of the writ petition. To support his argument, he referred to a decision rendered by the Apex Court in Arun Kumar Roy vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC 1858 where the Apex Court observed in paragraph 11 of the said judgment that the petitioner made no grievance in his writ petition about the delay in consideration of his representation. In the instant case, the grievances of the petitioner is taken in paragraphs 6 and 10 of the writ petition where the petitioner has stated that the representation filed by the petitioner on 26.10.91 has not been considered by the respondents and that non-consideration of the representation amounts to denial of justice of the detenu. In the instant case, the grievances of the petitioner is taken in paragraphs 6 and 10 of the writ petition where the petitioner has stated that the representation filed by the petitioner on 26.10.91 has not been considered by the respondents and that non-consideration of the representation amounts to denial of justice of the detenu. In this connection it may be pertinent to refer to the Annxure R/1 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, the order 22nd November, 1991 purportedly passed in reference to the representation filed by the detenu. The order dated 22nd November, 91 Annexure R/1 reads as under:- "I am directed to refer to your representation addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur on the above subject and to say that the representation has carefully been considered by the Government. But it is regretted to inform you that your request for release cannot be acceded to. The representation shall be placed before the Advisory Board for consideration, (emphasis supplied) (Kh. Mohendra Singh) Deputy Secretary (Home) to the Government of Manipur." A bare perusal of the order aforesaid, there is no mention of the disposal of the representation submitted by the detenu or the rejection of the representation. The petitioner is therefore absolutely right that there was no disposal of the representation submitted by the detenu. On the other hand the representation of the detenu was to be place before the Advisory Board for consider at ion. It must be grasped that the appropriate Government is to exercise its opinion and judgment on the representation before sending the case alongwith the detenu's representation to the Advisory Board. In other words, the consideration of the representation of the detenu by the appropriate authority is entirely independent of any action by the Advisory Board. In the instant case the appropriate Government has failed to discharge its utmost corelative duty. Even assuming that the detenu had not raised in his writ petition about the delay in disposing of his representation, in Nagendra Nath (supra ) the Apex Court had allowed the plea not raised in the petition at the stage of hearing on ground that it was habeas corpus petition. Even assuming that the detenu had not raised in his writ petition about the delay in disposing of his representation, in Nagendra Nath (supra ) the Apex Court had allowed the plea not raised in the petition at the stage of hearing on ground that it was habeas corpus petition. In Harish Pahwa vs. State of UP, AIR 1981 SC 1126 the same view was taken by the Apex Court in paragraph 2 of its judgment reproduced below:- "(2) The only point that has been raised before us by Mr. Garg appea­ring on behalf of the appellant is that the representation made by him against his detention to the State Government was not decided within a reasonable time and that the delay is fatal to the detention. This point was no doubt taken before the High Court, but in view of its impor­tance and the fact that all the material necessary for its determination is available on the record, we have allowed it to be raised before us and have overruled a preliminary objection taken by the State to the effect that it should not be entertained." This submission of the counsel for the respondents has no merit and it therefore fails. 10. This apart, it is interesting to note that the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu were that the detenu purchased ganja from Shri S. Ibotombi Singh. However it is curious to note that no action appears 19 have been taken against the said S. Ibotombi Singh of which mentioned has been made by the Advisory Board in its report at internal page 4 submitted to the Government, the relevant portion of which runs as under:- "We however fail to understand why the other main culpirt in the case, namely S. Ibotombi Singh from whom the detenu is said to have purchased all the ganjas not arrested in the case under Section 20(b)(1) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and why no action was taken against him under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. Government may be pleased to look into the matter." This we are only pointing out, we exprees no opinion. 11. For the aforesaid reasons we allow this petition. Detention order is quashed. Detenu Md. Government may be pleased to look into the matter." This we are only pointing out, we exprees no opinion. 11. For the aforesaid reasons we allow this petition. Detention order is quashed. Detenu Md. Tayeb AH, resident of Yairipok Ningthounai Village, P.S. Lamlai, District Imphal, Manipur is set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in connection with any other case. Petition allowed.