JUDGMENT : S.K. Mookerji, J. This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed by Babboo Singh alias Ranvir Singh questioning the validity of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, dated 26-12-1992. Both the detention order and grounds of detention were served on the same day on the petitioner in the District Jail at Kanpur where he was already kept under arrest in connection with some criminal cases. Relevant dates, as-stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and not disputed by the learned Counsel for the State, are given hereinafter. 2. On 26-12-1992 a report u/s 3(4) of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was sent to the State Government. On 4-1-1993 the State Government approved the order of detention. On 5-1-1993 the State Government sent its report to the Central Government u/s 3(5) of the Act. ft is averred in the petition that on 5-1-1993 an identical representation through the Superintendent, District Jail, Kanpur Dehat was sent to the State Government and the Central Government. However, the Deputy Jailor, District Jail, Kanpur Nagar, in his counter affidavit, had admitted to have received the representation of the petitioner 07-1-1993. It will be important to note that on 8-1-1993 the District Magistrate forwarded the representation of the petitioner to the State Government. without comments. It is also equally important to note that on 18-1-1993 the District Magistrate sent his comments in respect of the representation made by the petitioner to the State Government. At this stage, it will be relevant to point out that the representation was forwarded earlier to the State Government without any comments on 8-1-93 and it was only on 18-1-1993 the District Magistrate sent his comments on the representation of the petitioner to the State Government. Thus, it appears that the District Magistrate took ten days time in sending his comments to the State Government. On 20-1-1993 comments were placed before the Advisory Board and the representation along with the comments of the District Magistrate was forwarded' to the Central Government. At this stage, it is pointed out that the learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that 10/11 days delay, from the above facts, is there is sending the comments by the District Magistrate to the State Government and 13 days delay in sending the representation to the Central Government was made. At this stage, it is pointed out that the learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that 10/11 days delay, from the above facts, is there is sending the comments by the District Magistrate to the State Government and 13 days delay in sending the representation to the Central Government was made. It is also pointed out that on 21-1-1993 notes were put up and ultimately on 22-1-1993 the State Government rejected the representation of the petitioner, which was received by the jailor on 7-1-1993. On 27-1-1993 rejection order was communicated to the petitioner through the district authorities. It is also pointed out that on 28-1-1993 hearing before the Advisory Board took place and the petitioner was present before the Advisory Board. On 9-2-1993 the District Magistrate sent its comments to the State Government and thereafter on 17-2-1993 the State Government passed the order of confirmation of the detention order. It is also pointed out that on 20-1-1993 the representation was sent to the Central Government by the State Government, which was received by the Central Government on 25-1-1993. On 28-1-1993 the representation of the petitioner was considered in the Home Department. On 1-2-1993 the said representation was placed before the Home Minister of the Central Government and on 3-2-1993 he desired the report of the Advisory Board by radiogram. Thereafter the report was sent, as desired, to the Central Government and finally on 22-2-1993 the Central Government received the report. Thereafter on 26-2-1993 the Central Government rejected the representation. 3. In the present case, the main argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the comments were sent to the State Government by the District Magistrate, i.e., detaining authority, almost after ten days from the date of detention order and this delay of ten days has not been explained either by the District Magistrate or by the State Government in their counter affidavits. 4. In support of his argument learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the pleading in the present case. He has relied upon paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Habeas Corpus Petition, which runs as under: 20. That in this connection it is further relevant to state herewith that the order of detention passed against the petitioner was approved by the State Government by means of its order dated 5th January, 1993. He has relied upon paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Habeas Corpus Petition, which runs as under: 20. That in this connection it is further relevant to state herewith that the order of detention passed against the petitioner was approved by the State Government by means of its order dated 5th January, 1993. The' petitioner thereafter made a representation to the Respondent No. 1 and 2. Copy of the representation dated 5-1-1993 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure IV to this writ petition. This representation was received by the Respondent No. 4 on 7-1-1993, though the representations to the Respondent No. 1 and 2 were handed over to the Respondent No. 3 simultaneously on 5-1-1993 itself. The petitioner was told by the Respondent No. 4 that he had forwarded the representation of the petitioner to the Respondent No. 2 and 1 immediately. However, he did not give any specific date of forwarding the same. However, the petitioner has yet not received any order either from the State Government or from the Union of India informing him that his representation has been rejected. In fact the petitioner has now been communicated with a radiogram through the Respondent No. 4, This radiogram merely states that the State Government has confirmed the order of detention on the basis of the report of the Advisory Board. The radiogram does not indicate that the State Government, has confirmed the order of detention after rejecting the representation of the petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that the State Government has not independently considered the representation of the petitioner, which was received by the agent of the State Government on 7-1-1993. The radiogram indicating confirmation by the State Government is dated 18-2-1993, a copy whereof is filed herewith and marked as Annexure V. to this petition. Thus, there is delay of nearly one and half months and despite that there is absolutely no explanation for not considering the representation of the petitioner before the opinion of the Advisory Board was obtained and considered, 21. That the petitioner is, therefore, advised to state that the order of detention passed against the petitioners is vitiated on account of the fact that the representation of the petitioner has not been considered by the State Government and there is absolutely no reason indicated about the delay in consideration of the representation. 5. That the petitioner is, therefore, advised to state that the order of detention passed against the petitioners is vitiated on account of the fact that the representation of the petitioner has not been considered by the State Government and there is absolutely no reason indicated about the delay in consideration of the representation. 5. Thereafter, learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon paragraphs 16 and 17 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. We are extracting paragraphs 16 and 17 of the supplementary affidavit filed by Subodh Kumar Singh hereinafter ; 16. That the petitioner has also made a representation against the ground, of his detention Jo the Central Government as well as the State Government . Respondents 1 and 2 through the Superintendent, District Jail, Kanpur Nagar, Respondent No. 5. This -representation was received on 7-1-1993 by the Jailor District Jail Kanpur Nagar. However, the petitioner has not yet been informed as to what has transpired upon the representations made by the petitioner. The decision taken by the Central Government or the State Government has not been conveyed to the petitioner. 17. That the petitioner's representation as such has remained undisposed of and the petitioners continued detention is as such has become void. 6. Now learned Counsel for the petitioner has “placed before us the original counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed by Upper Division Asstt., Bansi Dhar Pandey on behalf of the State Government. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed before us the supplementary counter affidavit of the District Magistrate and of the State Government. To be precise, the District Magistrate in paragraph 18 and 19 of the counter affidavit has replied the averments made in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Habeas Corpus Petition, mentioned above. The stand taken by the District Magistrate in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the counter affidavit is that the averment made in the petition relates to the State Government and need no reply from him. It id rather Very surprising the District Magistrate himself has sent his comments after a lapse of 10/11 days and it is expected from him only that he should give detail reply to the averments made in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the petition explaining reasons in sending the comments on the representation of the petitioner after such a delay. It id rather Very surprising the District Magistrate himself has sent his comments after a lapse of 10/11 days and it is expected from him only that he should give detail reply to the averments made in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the petition explaining reasons in sending the comments on the representation of the petitioner after such a delay. The District Magistrate has not given single reason for not sending the comments in time and also as to why the comments have come so late, as indicated above. Regarding paragraph 17 of the Supplementary counter affidavit in reply to the contents of paragraph 16 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, the District Magistrate has stated that the averments made therein are untrue. Thus, we are of the opinion that the District Magistrate has failed to state reasons for the delay in sending the comments on the representation of petitioner to the State Government. It will be relevant to point out that Bansi Dhar Pandey has filed counter affidavit. In paragraphs 2 (i), 2 (ii) and 3 of the counter affidavit it is stated as, under: 2(i). That in reply to the averments made in paragraphs 20 (p), 21 and 22 of the petition it is stated that petitioner's representation dated 7-1-93 which was addressed to Home Secretary, U.P. and Home Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi, was sent by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar to the State Government on 7-1-93 which was received by the State Government on 8-1-93. This representation was not accompanied with the comments of parawise replies of the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. The State Government however, placed the aforesaid representation before the Advisory Board on 11-1-93. The District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar sent comments on aforesaid representation to the State Government on 18-1-93 which was received by the State Government on 19-1-93. The State Government placed the comments of District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar before the Advisory Board on 20-1-93. A copy of the above representation along with the comments of detaining authority were also sent to Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi by the State Government on 20-1-1993. The Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi vide his telex message dated 2-3-1993 intimated to the petitioner through Superintendent, District Jail, Kanpur as well as to the State Government that above representation was rejected by the Central Government. 2(ii). The Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi vide his telex message dated 2-3-1993 intimated to the petitioner through Superintendent, District Jail, Kanpur as well as to the State Government that above representation was rejected by the Central Government. 2(ii). It is further state that a copy of petitioner representation was retained by the State Government as such it was examined and a detailed note was put up by the section concerned on 21-1-93. The Deputy Secretary, Special Secretary and Home Secretary examined the above representation on 22-1-1993. Finally it was rejected by the State Government on 22-1-93 itself. The fact about the rejection of the representation was communicated to the petitioner through district authorities by the State Government on 27-1-93. It is further stated that the petitioner was actually detained on 26-12-92. The case of the petitioner was referred to the Advisory Board by the State Government on 7-1-93. The Advisory Board heard the petitioner personally on 28-1-93. The report of Advisory Board indicating that there is sufficient cause to detain the petitioner was received by the State Government together with its covering letter dated 9-2-93 on 9-2-93, thereafter the State Government once again examined the entire matter of the petitioner in detail and since the Government was of the view that order of detention deserves to be confirmed, confirmation order for detention of 12 months was issued on 17-2-93. Averments to the contrary are incorrect and as such accordingly denied. 3. That in reply to the averments made in paragraph 20 (p) of the petition it is stated that the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar sent his report to the State Government along with the detention order dated 26-12-92 passed against the petitioner and all the material and documents which have bearing upon this order. It was received by the State Government on 29-12-92 After examining every aspect in detail the order of detention was approved by the State Government on 4-1-93. The fact about the approval of detention order was communicated to the petitioner through district Authorities by the State Government' on 5-1-93. It was received by the State Government on 29-12-92 After examining every aspect in detail the order of detention was approved by the State Government on 4-1-93. The fact about the approval of detention order was communicated to the petitioner through district Authorities by the State Government' on 5-1-93. The State Government reported to the Central Government about the approval of detention on 5-1-93 and on the same day the detention order, grounds of detention and all other papers were also-sent to the Central Government which were received by the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi on 6-1-1993, within seven days from the dated of approval as provided u/s 3(5) of the Act. Thus the State Government complied with the provisions of Section 3(4) and 3(5) of the Act. 7. It is also relevant to extract paragraph 4 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed by Bansi Dhar Pandey on behalf of the State of U.P. 4. That the contents of paragraphs 16, 17 and 19 of the supplementary affidavit are innocent, misleading hence denied. It is against stated that from the facts shown in paragraphs 2 (i) and 2 (ii) of the counter affidavit filed by the dependent in aforesaid petition it is clear that petitioner's representation was decided expeditiously. 8. From the reading of the aforesaid counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed either by the District Magistrate or by the State Government it is clear that no iota of evidence has been disclosed in explaining that delay made by the District Magistrate in sending the comments on 18-1-1993 although he had forwarded the representation to the State Government on 8-1-1993. From the above reading learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that other points involved in the present case may not be decided at this stage but this petition should be allowed wholly on the ground that there is no explanation for the delay made by the District Magistrate in sending the comments to the State Government after a lapse on 10/11 days. Learned Counsels for the petitioner has relied upon a case- Mahesh Kumar Chauhan alias Banti Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1990 SC 1455 . This is a case under the Provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. Learned Counsels for the petitioner has relied upon a case- Mahesh Kumar Chauhan alias Banti Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1990 SC 1455 . This is a case under the Provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. No doubt,- in this case delay was occasioned on the part of the sponsoring authority an Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the delay was not explained and, therefore, the delay occasioned on the part of the sponsoring authority in sending the comments without any explanation was violative of provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. This case law shall be applicable in the present case as the detaining authority, i. e. the District Magistrate or the State Government has offered no explanation for sending the comments by the District Magistrate after ten days. We are, therefore, of the opinion (hat the unexplained delay of ten days in sending the comments by the District Magistrate to the State' Government amounts to violation of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, continued detention is impermissible and unconstitutional as being violative- of. the mandatory provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In paragraph 11 of the above decision Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon a decision of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Jayanarayan Sukul Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 675 . The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the case and highly deprecated the conduct of appropriate authorities in unduly and unreasonably delaying; the consideration and disposal of a representation and stated as follows (at page 878 of AIR): The reason for immediate consideration of the representation is too Obvious to be stressed. The personal liberty of a person is at stake. Any delay would not only be an irresponsible act on the part of the appropriate authority but also unconstitutional because the Constitution enshrines the fundamental right of a detenu to have his representation considered and it is imperative that when the liberty of a person is in peril immediate action should be taken by the relevant authorities. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner thereafter cited the, case Rama Dhondu Borade Vs. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police and Others, AIR 1989 SC 1861 . This case arose under the provisions of National Security Act. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner thereafter cited the, case Rama Dhondu Borade Vs. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police and Others, AIR 1989 SC 1861 . This case arose under the provisions of National Security Act. In this case a delay of 7 days has occurred in forwarding the parawise comments to the State Government. The explanation offered by the authority was not accepted by Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was held that the continued detention of the petitioner was illegal, Learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed before us another decision of the Supreme Court in case Julia Jose Mavely Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 139 . This case is also under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. In this case also there was inordinate delay in forwarding the comments and there was no explanation offered by the authority as to why such delay has occurred. The detention order was held illegal and violative of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 10. Applying the test led in the above Supreme Court cases and taking into consideration the relevant pleadings of the parties, we are of the opinion that in absence of any explanation either by the District Magistrate or by the State Government, delay on the part of the District Magistrate in sending the comments to the State Government on 18-1-1993 is fatal and amounts to violation of the mandatory provisions of Article 32(5) of the Constitution of India. The fundamental right of freedom and liberty of the petitioner cannot be curtailed in this manner by delaying the process in deciding the representation and in such event the detention “order or continued detention of the petitioner shall be illegal The delay in sending the comments is not only violative of provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India but resulted into delay in the decision of the State Government on the, representation made by the petitioner. We are, therefore, of the opinion that on this point alone this writ petition should succeed. 11. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition succeeds and is avowed and the impugned detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, Annexure 1 to the writ petition is set aside. We are, therefore, of the opinion that on this point alone this writ petition should succeed. 11. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition succeeds and is avowed and the impugned detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, Annexure 1 to the writ petition is set aside. The Respondents' are directed to release the petitioner forthwith and set him at liberty unless he is required in some other case. There shall be no order as to costs.