JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioner in this case was detained on 17th February, 1995 in pursuance of order (Annexure-1) passed by the District Magistrate, Jhalawar. The grounds of detention were supplied on 18th February, 1995 and the State Government has confirmed the detention order on 23rd February, 1995. It is not necessary to go into the grounds on which the detention has been made because the main question in this case is whether there is delay in deciding the representation made by the detenu petitioner and if so can the detention order said to be illegal on this ground. 2. Before coming to the representation it may be stated that this habeas corpus petition was filed/presented on 10th April, 1995. The counsel for the State Government and the counsel for the UOI took notices of the same on 14th April, 1995. The next date fixed in the case was 24th April, 1995 on which date both the counsel for the respondents wanted further time for filing reply. This request was objected to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, in the circumstances, two weeks time was allowed. The next date was 8th May, 1995 and when the case was listed before the Bench of which Justice Arun Madan was a party, he made exception. The case then was fixed for 10th May, 1995. On this date the respondents again sought time for filing reply but this was not allowed. However, the reply of state was filed and the same is allowed to be taken on record. The case was fixed for 15th May, 1995 but was not listed on that date and it has been listed today. Today, the learned counsel for the Union of India requested for further time for filing reply on the ground that the representation of the petitioner is under consideration hence, papers could not be sent to the counsel. About three months' time has already been granted to the Union of India for filing of the reply and there is no reason for which further time can be granted in this habeas corpus petition. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The dates of the detention and confirmation of the same have already been given above. The petitioner moved a representation on 9th March, 1995 addressing it to the President of India and submitted the same to the Dy. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The dates of the detention and confirmation of the same have already been given above. The petitioner moved a representation on 9th March, 1995 addressing it to the President of India and submitted the same to the Dy. Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Jhalawar. It appears that this was not forwarded as desired and the father of the detenu petitioner sent a telegram to the Collector Jhalwar on 18th March, 1995 and on 21st March, 1995 the representation was forwarded to the President of India and a copy of the same was forwarded to the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Government of Rajasthan. The State Government rejected the representation on 3rd April, 1995. The representation moved to the President of India is still not decided. Nearly two months have passed and no explanation has been furnished for not deciding the same sofar. 4. First of all there has been no explanation as to why the representation of the detenu petitioner submitted on 9th March, 1995 was not forwarded to the appropriate authority till 21st March, 1995. The only explanation given is that disciplinary action has been recommended against the Jail Superintendent who sat upon the representation of the petitioner, but this will not be sufficient explanation so far the rights of the petitioner to get the representation decided at an early date is concerned. Though no time has been fixed for deciding the representation still it has to be decided without any reasonable delay, as early as possible. Whenever there is delay in disposing the representation it should be explained by the appropriate authority so that the Court can examine the same and arrive at a conclusion whether the representation has been decided after undue delay or the delay has been explained. However, in this case, there is no explanation for not deciding the representation even till today. Under Section 8 of the National Security Act it has been provided that a detenu shall be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention to the appropriate Government. However, in this case, there is no explanation for not deciding the representation even till today. Under Section 8 of the National Security Act it has been provided that a detenu shall be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention to the appropriate Government. The appropriate authority in this case is State Government but under Section 14 of the National Security Act, the Central Government can also revoke or modify any detention order notwithstanding that the order has been made by the State Government on the Central Government The petitioner, therefore, has a right to represent before the Central Government for making a prayer for revoking the detention order. This representation ought to have been decided within a reasonable time but this has not been done. 5. We may cite a few authorities in this respect. 6. In Rajindra v. Commissioner of Police, Nagpur Division and Ors. (1994 Supp.(2) SCC 716) it has been held that in matters of preventive detention the representation before the appropriate authority must be dealt with expeditiously. In this case, the representation was rejected by the Central Government after about 52 days and the delay was not explained, the detention order was quashed. In Mohinuddin v. District Magistrate ( AIR 1987 SC 1977 ) continued detention of the detenu was held to be illegal when there was unexplained delay on the part of the State Govt, to consider the representation made by the detenu to the Chief Minister. This failure on the part of the Government was held to be violative of provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The representation which has been made on 22nd September, 1986 to the Chief Minister was not looked into by the Chief Minister till 17th November, 1987. It was observed : "We say and we think it necessary to repeat that the gravity of the evil to the community resulting from anti-social activities can never furnish an adequate reason for invading the personal liberty of a citizen, except in accordance with the procedure established by the Constitution and the laws. The history of personal liberty is largely the history of insistence on observance of the procedural safeguards." 7. In Aslam Ahmed Ze-hire Ahmed Shaik v. UOI and Ors. The history of personal liberty is largely the history of insistence on observance of the procedural safeguards." 7. In Aslam Ahmed Ze-hire Ahmed Shaik v. UOI and Ors. ( AIR 1989 SC 1403 ) unexplained delay of 7 days in the transmission of the representation by the Jail Superintendent in forwarding the representation and the Jail Superintendent giving no explanation as to why the representation was retained, though opportunity was afforded to him, was held to be unavoidable (sic) and unexplained delay which made the continued detention of the detenu illegal. 8. Several other authorities have also been cited but we do not consider necessary to multiply them. 9. On behalf of the Union of India and also the State of Rajasthan it has been contended that the detenu has deliberately sent the representation to the President of India and not to the State Government so as the matter may be delayed. What the counsel says may be true but then if there is some explanation for the long delay in the decision of the representation then this Court will certainly look into the reasons and if found that the petitioner has deliberately sent it to delay the matter then his plea will not be accepted. However, in this case, there is no explanation coming forward on behalf of the Central Government for the delay in the decision of the representation, hence, they cannot take advantage of wrongly addressing the representation to the President of India. 10. The fact that the representation has not been decided by the Central Government even after about seven weeks' of the submission of the representation makes the continued detention of the petitioner illegal and deserves to be quashed. 11. The petition is allowed. The detention order of the petitioner, dated 17th Feb., 1995 (Annex.-1) is set aside. He shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. *******