JUDGMENT - S.P. KURDUKAR, J.:----This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of habeas corpus is filed by the petitioner-detenu challenging the legality and correctness of the detention order dated 6th May, 1991, issued under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 by the 1st respondent, the detaining authority. 2. The impugned order came to be served upon the detenu on 21 June, 1991. 3. Number of contentions were taken up in the writ petition. But, however, Mr. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing in support of this petition, pressed into service the contentions relating to the delay on the part of the Union of India in disposing of the representation of the petitioner detenu. In our opinion also, if the said contention is upheld, it is not necessary to consider the other contentions. 4. According to the petitioner, he sent his representation to the Union of India on 16th October, 1991. It is common premise that the concerned authority of the Union of India received the representation on 21st October, 1991. The representation was processed on the same day and as additional information was needed to dispose of the detenu's representation, the Union of India, by its wirless message dated 22nd October, 1991 asked the State Government to furnish the required information. There is also no dispute that the State Government received the said message on the following day and the required information was sent on 25th October, 1991. The Union of India also asked the State Government to furnish parawise comments. Parawise comments were received by the Union of India on 25th November, 1991. Decision to reject the representation was taken by the Union of India on 6th December, 1991 and the same was communicated to jail authority on 10th December, 1991. 5. Mr. Tripathi, relying upon these dates, urged that in this case, it is the State Government, who has to explain as to when parawise comments were sent to the Union of India by the detaining authority. To be precise, for the delay between 22nd October, 1991 and 25th November, 1991, which covers the period of one month and three days, the detaining authority is expected to give satisfactory explanation therefore. 6. Mr. B.S. Rane, Police Sub-Inspector, Azad Maidan Police Station, has filed an affidavit explaning the delay between 22nd October, 1991 and 25th November, 1991. To be precise, for the delay between 22nd October, 1991 and 25th November, 1991, which covers the period of one month and three days, the detaining authority is expected to give satisfactory explanation therefore. 6. Mr. B.S. Rane, Police Sub-Inspector, Azad Maidan Police Station, has filed an affidavit explaning the delay between 22nd October, 1991 and 25th November, 1991. In paragraph two of his said affidavit, he has stated that the State Government rejected the representation of the detenue and the same was communicated by letter dated 22nd October, 1991. Along with this letter, a copy of the representation addressed by the detenu to the Central Government was also forwarded, which was received in the office of the P.C.B., C.I.D. On 30th October, 1991. The said representation was then processed and was received by the sponsoring authority on 9th November, 1991. It was received by him on 7th November, 1991. Parawise comments were prepared in consultation with the Police Prosecutor on 11th November, 1991. They were forwarded to P.C.B., C.I.D. for onward transmission to Central Government on 15th November, 1991, under the signature of the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, the detaining authority. The explanation sought to be given by Shri B.S. Rane, on behalf of the detaining authority does not appeal to us. At every stage, there appears to be delay in sending the parawise comments. It had occupied nearly a month and three days for parawise comments, which were sent on 15th November, 1991 by the detaining authority. In our opinion, because of this delay, the Union of India could not dispose of the representation expeditiously. We hope, the detaining authority will curtail the period taken for sending the parawise comments in order to avoid delay in disposing of the representation by the Union of India. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that there was unexplained delay in disposing of the petitioner's representation and, therefore, it has rendered the continued detention of the petitioner-detenu illegal. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds. Respondent's are directed to release the detenu forthwith, if not required in any other case, Rule made absolute. Rule made absolute.