JUDGMENT - H.H. KANTHARIA, J.:---By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who is the wife of one Arun Gawali (hereinafter referred to as "the detenu") impugns the detention order dated 27th September, 1993 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by sub-section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 2. The detenu, along with six others, was arrested by the Officers of the Crime Branch, Bombay, on 20th July, 1990 in connection with an offence of murder registered at the Tardeo Police Station vide their C.R. No. 287 of 1990. Since the police had invoked the provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, the detenu and others were produced before the Designated Court on 23rd July, 1990 and were remanded to police custody. On completion of the investigation, they were chargesheeted in two separate cases being TADA Special Case No. 42 of 1991 and TADA Special Case No. 51 of 1991. After a full-fledged trial in TADA Special Case No. 42 of 1991, the Designated Court vide its judgment and order dated 27th September, 1993, acquitted the detenu and others and ordered their immediate release. After the pronouncement of this judgment and on completing the necessary formalities before the Registrar of the Sessions Court in Bombay, the detenu was taken back to Yerwada Central Prison. However, he was not released on that day and on 28-9-1993 at about 9.00 a.m., he was served with a detention order dated 27th September, 1993 passed by the 1st respondent, the Bombay Police Commissioner, under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act. By a separate order of the same date, the detenu was directed to be detained in Yerwada Central Prison at Pune. On 30th September, 1993, the detenu was served with a copy of the grounds of detention in English and Marathi in Yerwada Central Prison. He was also served with the copies of the documents forming part of the compilation along with an index of documents in Marathi. A Corrigendum of the detention order was served on him on 3rd October, 1993 for some correction. He was also served with the copies of the documents forming part of the compilation along with an index of documents in Marathi. A Corrigendum of the detention order was served on him on 3rd October, 1993 for some correction. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, as stated above, invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing the present writ petition. 3. A number of grounds are taken in the writ petition in order to challenge the constitutional validity and legality of the impugned detention order. However, it is not necessary to deal with all of them as the petition should succeed on a single ground that there was undue and unexplained delay in considering the representation made by the detenu to the Central Government (respondent No. 4). Thus, Mr. Shirodkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, urged that there was a delay of 29 days in considering the representation of the detenu and a further delay of 9 days in communicating the rejection of the representation on account of which the conclusion is inevitable that the continued detention of the detenu cannot be sustained in law. 4. Now, admittedly, the detenu had made a representation on 23-10-1993 to the Central Government which was submitted to and received by the 2nd respondent, the Superintendent of Yerwada Central Prison, Pune, on the same day. The said representation was, once again admittedly, received by the Central Government on 27-10-1993. The Central Government sent a wireless message to the State Government on 27-10-1993 seeking certain "vital" information but did not state as to what the said "vital" information was. Since the Central Government did not receive the required information, a reminder was issued on 5-11-1993. The Central Government received the required information on 13-11-1993 vide a wireless message of the State Government dated 12-11-1993. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there was thus a delay of 17 days in this behalf. Further facts of the case disclose that the file was put up before the Deputy Secretary of the Central Government on 16-11-1993 and there was thus a further delay of 3 days, submitted Mr. Shirodkar. Admittedly, the Hon'ble Home Minister of the Central Government rejected the representation of the detenu on 19-11-1993 and thus, according to Mr. Further facts of the case disclose that the file was put up before the Deputy Secretary of the Central Government on 16-11-1993 and there was thus a further delay of 3 days, submitted Mr. Shirodkar. Admittedly, the Hon'ble Home Minister of the Central Government rejected the representation of the detenu on 19-11-1993 and thus, according to Mr. Shirodkar, there was undue and unexplained delay in considering the representation of the detenu. Mr. Shirodkar then urged that although it is claimed that a crash wireless message was sent to the detenu on 22-11-1993 informing him about the rejection of his representation, he was actually informed about it only on 1-12-1993 and this delay of 9 days in communicating the rejection of the representation to the detenu was again not explained. 5. In order to explain away the delay in considering the representation of the detenu, as stated above, the Desk Officer on the Home Department (Special) of the State Government, Mr. Ambade filed an affidavit dated 7-3-1994 in which he averred that the wireless message dated 27-10-1993 from the Central Government was received on 29-10-1993 and the required information was supplied to the Central Government on 29-10-1993 itself. However, it is important to note that the affidavit does not speak about the reminder dated 5-11-1993. But there is a further affidavit of Mr. Ambade dated 18-3-1994 in which certain averments are made to explain away the delay. It is stated in this affidavit that the Central Government by the telex message dated 27-10-1993, received by the State Government on 29-10-1993, required certain information, viz. (a) actual date of detention, (b) date on which grounds of detention were supplied to the detenu and (c) opinion of the Advisory Board; that the information at points (a) and (b) above were supplied to the Central Government by a wireless message dated 29-10-1993 and the Central Government was informed that the opinion of the Advisory Board was awaited; and that the Central Government by a wireless message dated 5-11-1993 again requested the State Government to intimate the opinion of the Advisory Board. For the sake of convenience, we may mention here that reference to the Advisory Board was made on 12-10-1993 and the opinion was expressed by the Advisory Board on 10-11-1993 which was received by the Department on 11-11-1993 and transmitted to the Central Government by a wireless message on 12-11-1993. 6. Mr. For the sake of convenience, we may mention here that reference to the Advisory Board was made on 12-10-1993 and the opinion was expressed by the Advisory Board on 10-11-1993 which was received by the Department on 11-11-1993 and transmitted to the Central Government by a wireless message on 12-11-1993. 6. Mr. Shirodkar urged that the information at points (a) and (b) above was already given to the Central Government on 8-10-1993 under section 3(5) of the National Security Act and the opinion of the Advisory Board was not necessary as the Central Government was not bound by it as under section 14 of the National Security Act, the Central Government can independently revoke the detention order. In the submission of Mr. Shirodkar, this was a vain and belated attempt to explain away the delay. 7. From the above facts and circumstances, the crucial question that arises for consideration is whether the Central Government should have waited for the opinion of the Advisory Board before taking a decision one way or the other in considering the representation of the detenu and thereby cause delay in considering the same. Mr. Shirodkar vehemently urged that the opinion of the Advisory Board was not binding on the Central Government and the settled position in law is that if the opinion of the Advisory Board was in favour of the detenu, it binds the Government and even if it is against the detenu, the Central Government may independently revoke the detention order under section 14 of the National Security Act. Mr. Shirodkar, therefore, submits that there was no necessity for the Central Government to wait for the opinion of the Advisory Board. While controverting this submission of Mr. Shirodkar, Mrs. Desai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (K.M. Abdulla Kunhi and B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union of India and others)1, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 574 and submitted that there is nothing wrong in the Central Government waiting for the opinion of the Advisory Board to take a decision one way or the other in considering the representation of the detenu and the delay, if any, caused on this account can be said to be well-explained. We are not able to persuade ourselves to agree with the submission of Mrs. We are not able to persuade ourselves to agree with the submission of Mrs. Desai for the simple reason that the said judgment of the Supreme Court was recently considered by a Division Bench of this Court (M.L. Pendse and M.F. Saldanha, JJ.) while deciding (Criminal Writ Petition No. 352 of 1993 on 9th September, 1993)2. The said unreported judgment is brought to our notice by Mr. Shirodkar and a perusal of the same shows that the Division Bench had considered the above-referred judgment of the Supreme Court and had opined that there appeared to be clear misconception about what the Supreme Court had decided in that case. The Division Bench after taking into consideration the various other judgments of the Supreme Court, had further observed that, in their judgment, the observations of the Supreme Court in the said case on which reliance was placed by the detaining authority were torn out of context and that the right to have representation considered by the Government was independent of the consideration of the detenu's case by the Advisory Board and the distinct constitutional rights flow under Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution and it is not permissible for the authority to deny the constitutional right under Clause (5) of Article 22 by claiming that representation will not be examined until the opinion of the Advisory Board is received. We are in respectful agreement with the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court and hold that the right of the Central Government to consider the representation of the detenu is independent of the opinion of the Advisory Board and that it was not necessary for the Central Government to have waited for the opinion of the Advisory Board and thus cause delay in considering the representation of the detenu. 8. Mr. Shirodkar further urged that admittedly the representation of the detenu was rejected by the Hon'ble Home Minister of the Central Government on 19-11-1993 but the same, according to Mr. Shirodkar, was communicated to the detenu only on 1-12-1993 and thus there was again a further delay. In this regard, Mrs. 8. Mr. Shirodkar further urged that admittedly the representation of the detenu was rejected by the Hon'ble Home Minister of the Central Government on 19-11-1993 but the same, according to Mr. Shirodkar, was communicated to the detenu only on 1-12-1993 and thus there was again a further delay. In this regard, Mrs. Desai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, showed us the file maintained by the Yerwada Central Prison and pointed out that the wireless message dated 22-11-1993 received from Central Government was brought to the notice of the detenu on the same day and that an endorsement was made on the back side of the wireless message. We are not impressed by the method adopted by the authorities of the Yerwada Central Prison in this regard because, in our opinion, had the communication been conveyed to the detenu, nothing prevented the jail authorities from obtaining his signature in that behalf that he was in fact informed about the decision of the Central Government rejecting his representation. Mrs. Desai then submitted that when the letter dated 22-11-1993 was received from the Central Government, a copy of the same was given to the detenu on 29-11-1993 and, therefore, the submission of Mr. Shirodkar that this communication was conveyed to the detenu on 1-12-1993 is not correct. In order to substantiate her argument, Mrs. Desai showed us an acknowledgment, which is a typed paper, and only the signature of the detenu appears on it below which the date "29-11-1993" at 4.55 p.m. is written. We once again are unable to appreciate this practice of the jail authorities of obtaining a separate receipt from the detenu as, in our opinion, the right way of taking an acknowledgment of the detenu was to have his signature on the office copy of the communication itself. Be that as it may, and assuming for the sake of argument that Mrs. Desai is right in saying that the communication dated 22-11-1993 regarding the rejection of the representation of the detenu was conveyed to the detenu on 29-11-1993, even then there is a delay of 7 days in communicating this decision to the detenu. This delay has also not been explained. Unexplained delay violates the right of the detenu enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution. 9. In conclusion, we find considerable force in the argument of Mr. This delay has also not been explained. Unexplained delay violates the right of the detenu enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution. 9. In conclusion, we find considerable force in the argument of Mr. Shirodkar that there was undue and unexplained delay in considering the representation made by the detenu to the Central Government. Thus, the representation of the detenu was not considered by the Central Government as early as possible and communicated to the detenu and, therefore, the continued order of detention cannot be sustained in law. 10. In the result, the petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The continuation of the order of detention passed against the detenu by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, is quashed and set aside. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in some other case. Rule is accordingly made absolute. Petition allowed.