ORDER : J.S. Verma, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard on merits. 3. The appellant Usha Rani is the wife of the detenu Vishan Singh alias Tipu Soni who has been detained by an order dated November 4, 1992 made under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred as COFEPOSA) on the ground that it is necessary to prevent him from dealing in smuggled goods. The period of his detention is to expire on November 9, 1993 since he was detained on November 9, 1992 when the detention order was served on him. The writ petition was filed by the appellant in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the detention. The High Court has dismissed the writ petition by an order dated April 16, 1993. This appeal by special leave is against that order. 4. The only submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay in consideration of the representation made by the detenu which has resulted in the violation of the constitutional imperative contained in Article 22(5) of the Constitution. This submission is based on the fact that the detenu had made a representation on December 23, 1992 which was considered and decided by the Central Government after a period of two months on February 23, 1993 even though the State Government had considered the representation within a reasonable period. It appears from the reply of the Central Government that the Central Government did not receive any representation of the detenu and it was only on enquiry made pursuant to service of the notice of the writ petition that a copy of the representation was sent by the State Government which was received by the Central Government on February 22, 1993 and considered and decided on February 23, 1993. The reply of the State Government is that a copy of the representation was sent by it to the Central Government on December 29, 1992 which did not reach the Central Government and, therefore, another copy was sent when an enquiry to this effect was made by the Central Government on service of the notice of the writ petition. The reply of the State Government is that a copy of the representation was sent by it to the Central Government on December 29, 1992 which did not reach the Central Government and, therefore, another copy was sent when an enquiry to this effect was made by the Central Government on service of the notice of the writ petition. Even this stand of the State Government appears to have been known to the High Court at the time of hearing without such a statement being made in the State Government's written reply filed in the High Court much less being supported by an affidavit to this effect. Even at this stage the relevant particulars of despatch of the representation on December 29, 1992 by the State Government to the Central Government supported by the requisite documents are not available to enable acceptance of such a stand taken by the State Government. That apart this alone even if true would not absolve the two Governments of the constitutional obligation to consider and decide the representation of the detenu promptly as envisaged by Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The fact remains that the representation made by the detenu on December 23, 1992 came to be decided by the Central Government two months later only on February 23, 1993 and there is no cogent explanation given to account for this delay which remains unexplained. 5. The duty to consider the representation as early as possible enjoined by Article 22(5) of the Constitution has been clearly indicated by a Constitution Bench in K.M. Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 476 wherein it has been stated as under: (SCC p. 484, para 12) "... The requirement however, is that there should not be supine indifference, slackness or callous attitude in considering the representation. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal." 6. On these facts, the unexplained inordinate delay in consideration of the detenu's representation is alone sufficient to render invalid the continued detention of the detenu since it has not been shown that the delay was unavoidable in the circumstances of the present case. 7. Consequently the appeal is allowed with the result that the writ petition filed in the High Court is allowed and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith. 7. Consequently the appeal is allowed with the result that the writ petition filed in the High Court is allowed and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith. Appeal allowed.