JUDGMENT The petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus against the order of his detention passed on 29.9.1992 "(Annexure P-1) by the District Magistrate, Jabalpur. The petition deserves to succeed on the short ground that against the order of detention the representation made by the petitioner's father on 9.10.1992 to the State Government was not immediately dispatched to the State Government for decision. There has been avoidable and unexplained delay of about 35 days on the part of the State Government in deciding the representation made by the detenu against his detention. It is not disputed that the representation made on behalf of the petitioner (Annexure-P/4) was received by the Office of District Magistrate on 9.10.1992. The contents of the communication, Annexure-P/3, clearly show that the represenk1tion made against the detention of the petitioner was received by the Home Department of the State on 29.10.1992 at Bhopal. The representation was rejected without stating any reasons by communication (Annexure-P/3) dated 13.11.1992. In the return submitted by the respondents, no explanation has been offered as to why the representation received on 9.10.1992 by District Magistrate was not immediately dispatched to the State Government and why it reached so late as on 29.10.1992 in the Home Department of the State. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1989 SC 1403 (Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik v. Union of India and others) and 1861 (Rama Dhondu Borede v. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police and others). It is urged that there has been avoidable and un-explained delay and there is no explanation whatsoever offered in the return of the State for such delay in considering and deciding the representation made by the petitioner against his detention. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that a reasonable time was spent in consulting the concerned authorities and processing the detention case of the petitioner by making reference to the Advisory Board and obtaining a decision from the Board. In our opinion, it is settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court (Supra) on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner that failure on the part of the Government to consider' and decide the representation made by the detenu promptly is denial of his constitutional right under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, it is settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court (Supra) on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner that failure on the part of the Government to consider' and decide the representation made by the detenu promptly is denial of his constitutional right under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. The period of time which elapsed in this case between the receipt of representation and its disposal by the State Government having not been explained at all. The order of detention has to be held as invalid. The learned counsel for petitioner points out another infirmity which makes the detention according to him, unconstitutional. The representation has been decided by communication (Annexure-P/3) dated 13.11.1992, but, no reasons have been assigned for rejecting the representation. In AIR 1972 SC 2215 (Niranjan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh), it was .urged by the petitioner that the order rejecting representation should be a speaking one. The Supreme Court has, however, not expressed any final opinion on the said point. We, therefore, also do not propose to deal with that aspect of the matter. In the instant case, there has been inordinate and unexplained delay in considering and deciding the representation of the detenu. The detention, order, therefore, deserves to be quashed on this ground. The petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 29.9.1992 (Annexure-P/1) is hereby quashed with direction to set the petitioner a liberty forthwith. AIR 1989 SC 1403 and 1861 followed. AIR 1972 SC 2215 explained.