JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J. :---Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2.The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there is an inordinate delay by respondent No. 3 in considering the petitioner/detenu's representation dated 30.5.1996. In his contention this inordinate delay has vitiated the continued detention of the petitioner/detenu. On behalf of respondent No. 3 a return has been filed by Mr. Ishwar Singh, Desk Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi wherein the said submission of petitioner's Counsel incorporated in ground 6C has been replied to. The reply is to be found in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the return. From a perusal of paragraph 7 it appears that after the representation of the petitioner/detenu had been processed at various stages it was put up before the Honourable Prime Minister of India who was looking after the work of Home Minister, on 19-6-1996. The Prime Minister's Office returned the file on 1-7-96 with the remark that it may be placed before the new Home Minister. Accordingly the Joint Secretary placed the file before the Home Secretary on 2-7-96. The Home Secretary put up the file before the Home Minister on 12-12-1996 and the latter rejected the representation the next day i.e. on 13-12-96. Even accepting the averments in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the return to be gospel truth, the painful reality is that the Home Secretary took more than 5 months in putting up the file before the Home Minister. We wish that the Home Secretary should have shown a greater sense of urgency. He should have borne in mind that preventive detention means detaining a person without trial. The law may permit it in the extreme situation when the prejudicial activities of the detenu cannot be curbed and contained by the ordinary law of the land. But the Home Secretary should have borne in mind that the right to make a representation at the earliest opportunity is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and in that right is implicit an obligation on the part of the authorities to whom such a representation is made to dispose off the same at the earliest. We are afraid that the Home Secretary was oblivious to this constitutional imperative. We are afraid that the Home Secretary was oblivious to this constitutional imperative. 3.In the circumstances we find that the unexplainable delay of over five months on the part of the Home Secretary, Union of India in holding on the file pertaining to petitioner's representation has rendered the continued detention of the petitioner/detenu illegal. 4.In the result this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 2nd April 1996 passed by respondent No. 1 detaining the petitioner/detenu under the National Security Act is quashed and the petitioner/detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case. Rule is made absolute. Petition allowed. ******