Judgment :- M.N. RAO,J. As common questions arise in these two writ petitions, they are disposed of by this judgment. Two detention orders passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam on 6-10-1994 and 7-10-1994 under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, (hereinafter referred to as the "ACT") are challenged in these two writ petitions. 2. Writ Petition No 21823 of 1994 concerns with the legality of the order dated 6-10-1994 by which Chebolu Jagannadha Rao, a registered owner of oil tanker bearing No. AP 31 U 1189, was detained on the ground that he was indulging in illegal activities by diverting kerosene oil meant for public distribution system in bulk quantities into open market for pecuniary personal gain in connivance with the wholesale kerosene oil dealers of Madugula and Chodavaram in contravention of Clause 3(2) of Kerosene Oil (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Prices) Order 1993 and Clauses 3(3), 22 and 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 read with Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as the aforesaid acts were prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. Writ Petition No. 21824 of 1994 concerns with the validity of the order of detention dated 7-10-1994 by which Vooda Satyanarayana alias Babu Rao, a resident of Yellamanchili, Visakhapatnam District and owner and proprietor of Sri Vasavi Filling Station, H.P.C. Diesel Retail outlet of Yerravaram village was detained on the grounds similar to the one contained in the order challenged in W.P. No. 21823 of 1994. The detenu in W.P. No. 21823 of 1994 was taken into custody on 19-10-1994 and the State Government by an order dated 17-10-1994 approved the action of the Collector and District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in passing the order of detention. On 25-10-1994 the detenu submitted a representation to the Advisory Board marking required number of copies and the same on being forwarded by the Jail Superintendent, Visakhapatnam, were received by the State Government on the 29-10-1994. The Advisory Board met on 11-11-1994 and after going through the entire record was satisfied that there was sufficient cause for ordering detention. The State Government accepting the opinion of the Advisory Board passed an order on 25-11-1994 confirming the order of detention specifying the period of detention as six months. The Advisory Board met on 11-11-1994 and after going through the entire record was satisfied that there was sufficient cause for ordering detention. The State Government accepting the opinion of the Advisory Board passed an order on 25-11-1994 confirming the order of detention specifying the period of detention as six months. The State Government submitted a report to the Central Government under Section 3(4) of the Act by letter No. 2674/L & O-II/94-2 enclosing a copy of the "order of detention and the grounds of detention together with its supporting material and also a copy of the order approving the detention" and requested the Central Government "to arrange and to consider the above report under Section 14(1) of the Act immediately and the decision of the Central Government may be communicated directly to the detenu in prison under intimation to this State Government". In W.P. No. 21823 of 1994 the detention order passed on 7-12-1994 was executed on 21-10-1994. The representation made by the detenu to the Advisory Board was received by the State Government on its being forwarded by the Superintendent of jail on 27-10-1994. The Advisory Board met on 11-11-1995 and recorded the opinion that there was sufficient cause for the detention and pursuant thereto the Government passed an order on 25-11-1994 confirming the detention prescribing the period of detention as six months. On 20-10-1994 the State Government addressed a letter to the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the Act enclosing the grounds of detention and supporting material and requested to consider the report and communicate the decision directly to the detenu in prison under intimation to the State Government. 3. Sri. Manohar, learned senior advocate, has raised several contentions which we think are not necessary for adjudication, hence we are satisfied that these two writ petitions must be allowed on the authority of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Sabir Ahmed v. Union of India : (1980) 3 SC 295. 4. It is not in dispute that the Central Government has not communicated their decision to the two detenus under Section 14(1) of the Act nor the State Government received any intimation as to the decision taken by the Central Government. Under Section 3(4) of the Act. 4. It is not in dispute that the Central Government has not communicated their decision to the two detenus under Section 14(1) of the Act nor the State Government received any intimation as to the decision taken by the Central Government. Under Section 3(4) of the Act. "the State Government shall within seven days report the fact to the Central Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in the opinion of the State Government have a bearing on the necessity for the order (detention)" Section 14 of the Act concerns with revocation of detention orders. Sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the Act which is relevant reads :- "14(1) : Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1987), detention order, may, at any time, be revoked or modified - (a) notwithstanding that the order has been made by an officer of a State Government, by that State Government or by the Central Government; (b) notwithstanding that the order has been made by an officer of the Central Government or by a State Government, by the Central Government." Sub-sections 3(4) and 14(1) of the Act are in pari materia with Sections 3(2) and 11(1) of the Conservation Of Foreign Exchange And Prevention Of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. Interpreting the aforesaid provisions of the COFEPOSA ACT, the Supreme Court in Sabir Ahmeds, ( 1980 (3) SCC 295 ) (cited supra), ruled : "Whether or not the detenue has under Section 11 a legal right to make a representation to the Central Government is not the real question. The nub of the matter is whether the power conferred by Section 11 on the Central Government, carries with it a duty to consider any representation made by the detenu, expeditiously. The power under Section 11 may either be exercised on information received by the Central Government from its own sources including that supplied under Section 3 by the State Government, or, from the detenu in the form of a petition or representation. Whether or not the Central Government on such petition/representation revokes the detention is a matter of discretion. But this discretion is coupled with a duty. That duty is inherent in the very nature of the jurisdiction. The power under Section 11 is a supervisory power. Whether or not the Central Government on such petition/representation revokes the detention is a matter of discretion. But this discretion is coupled with a duty. That duty is inherent in the very nature of the jurisdiction. The power under Section 11 is a supervisory power. It is intended to be an additional check of safeguard against the improper exercise of its power of detention by the detaining authority or the State Government. If this statutory safeguard is to retain its meaning and efficacy, the Central Government must discharge its supervisory responsibility with constant vigilance and watchful care. The report received under Section 3, or any communication or petition received from the detenu must be considered with reasonable expedition. What is reasonable expedition is a question depending on the circumstances of the particular case. No hard and fast rule as to the measure of reasonable time can be laid down. But it certainly does not cover the delay due to negligence, callous inaction, avoidable red-tapism and unduly protracted procrastination." In these two cases, the Central Government did not appear to have taken any decision; if it had taken a decision, the same would have been communicated to the detenu under intimation to the State Government. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the two detenus have not received any communication from the Central Government and the learned Advocate-General has admitted that no intimation from the Central Government as to the action taken under Section 14 (1) of the Act has been received by the State Government. It is, therefore, clear that the mandatory requirements of Section 14(1) have been breached. We therefore allow both the writ petitions following the aforesaid ruling of the Supreme Court. 5. The order of the Collector and District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in Rc. No. 948/94-C4 dated 6-10-1994 is quashed and the detenu Chebolu Jagannadha Rao, who is now lodged in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. 6. Likewise, the order of the Collector and District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam passed in ROC. No. 1395/94-C-4, dated 7-10-1994 is quashed and the detenu Vooda Satyanarayana alias Babu Rao, who is also now lodged in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam shall be set at liberty, if not required in connection with any other case. No costs. Petition allowed.