N. L. GANGULY, J. ( 1 ) RAM Autar alias Om Prakash filed this Habeas Corpus Petition for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith and to set the petitioner at liberty. A writ of certiorari is also prayed for quashing the impugned detention order dt. 30-1-96 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. ( 2 ) THE Petitioner was confined to the District Jail. Kanpur Nagar under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, I. P. C. 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sec. 3 (2) (5) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. On 6-12-95 when the petitioner was in District Jail, Kanpur Nagar, the impugned order dt. 6-12-95 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar (Annexure 1) alongwith the grounds of detention was served to him through the Jail Authorities on 7-12-95. The petitioner submitted his representation on 18-12-95 through the Jail Authorities which was received by the State Government on 20-12-95. The District Magistrate sent his comments on the representation of the petitioner on 5-1-96 which was received by the State Government on 6-1-96. Reference was made to the Advisory Board and the petitioner was heard on 15-1-96. The order of detention was confirmed by the State Govt. on 15-1-96 itself. ( 3 ) THE petitioner in the writ petition stated that he is a peace loving and law abiding citizen, employed in the ordinance Equipment Factory, Phoolbad, Kanpur. His service record had been clean. He pleaded that on 15-11-95, he left his home at 6 a. m. to join his duties at 7. 30 a. m. at the factory and actually reported on his duty at 7. 30 a. m. on the said date. He was on duty between 7. 30 a. m. to 4. 45 p. m. on 15-11-95 at the Factory. On Mangli had lodged an FIR at 9. 20 a. m. on 15-11-95, the petitioner and others committed murder of one Rajesh. It was stated in the FIR that the petitioner fired in the air and that he caught hold of hands of the deceased. In the FIR, it was however alleged that the petitioner caused fire arm injury. It is also nowhere whispered in the report that the shot fired by the petitioner hit Babmi deceased. It was stated in the FIR that the petitioner fired in the air and that he caught hold of hands of the deceased. In the FIR, it was however alleged that the petitioner caused fire arm injury. It is also nowhere whispered in the report that the shot fired by the petitioner hit Babmi deceased. According to the prosecution case in the FIR the deceased did not receive any fire arm injury on his person. No injury was caused by the petitioner by fire arm. The petitioner has been implicated in the said case on account of the enmity between the family of the petitioner and the informant of the said FIR. The mention of Sec. 3 (2) of S. C. /s. T. (P. A.) Act against the petitioner and his family members was added only on account of the enmity and to add colour to the case. It is submitted that if the allegation of the prosecution is seen, it would appear that the petitioner, his wife and son came to the house of the informant and insulted him by abusing him calling him "acchut CHAMAR" and gave threat to set Chapar on fire. ( 4 ) THE petitioner was implicated falsely in the case on account of personal enmity and the facts and circumstances do not show that the allegation in any manner has any connection with the law and order or public order. The incident was confined to two private individuals and amounted to infringement of law and did not make out any case of public order nor furnished any ground or the basis, so as to attract the passing of the order of detention under National Security Act. The petitioner on coming to know about the false criminal case filed Crime No. 222 of 1995 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, I. P. C. 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sec. 3 (2) (5) of S. C. /s. T. (P. O.) Act, surrendered before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar on 29-11-95. He was sent to jail, his bail application was rejected by the learned C. J. M. on 29-11-95. ( 5 ) THE petitioner was in jail when the copy of the detention order was served on 6-12-95. He was sent to jail, his bail application was rejected by the learned C. J. M. on 29-11-95. ( 5 ) THE petitioner was in jail when the copy of the detention order was served on 6-12-95. ( 6 ) THE petitioners representation dated 18-12-95 which was received by the State Government on 20-12-95 was placed before the Advisory Board for the first time on 17-1-96 on which date the petitioner was called to appear before the Advisory Board. ( 7 ) COUNTER affidavits of Sri Riaz Ahmad, Station Officer, P. S. Panki, Kanpur Nagar, Sri Banshi Dhar Pandey, U. D. C. in the Confidential Section of U. P. Secretariat, Lucknow, Sri Harbhajan Singh, District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar and Sri O. P. Singh, Dy. Jailor, Kanpur Nagar have been filed. Four rejoinder affidavit separately to each of the counter affidavits have been filed by Sri Ayodhya Prasad. ( 8 ) SRI Banshi Dhar Pandey, U. D. C. in the Confidential Section of U. P. Secretariate, Lucknow in his counter affidavit stated in para 2 in reply to para 16 of the writ petition that the petitioners representation dated 18-12-95, was forwarded by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar to the State Government on 20-12-95 which was received by the State Government on 20-12-95, that the representation was not accompanied with the comments of the District Magistrate. However, the State Government placed the representation before the Advisory Board on 22-12-95. The District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar sent the comments on the representation to the State Government on 6-1-96 which was received by the State Government on 8-1-96. The State Government placed the comments of the District Magistrate, the Detaining Authority before the Advisory Board on 9-1-96. A copy of the petitioners representation was retained by the State Government. As such, it was examined and detailed note was put up by the Section Officer on 9-1-96. The Dy. Secretary, Special Secretary and Secretary (Home), examined the representation on 9-1-96 and it was rejected on 11-1-96. The fact about the rejection of the representation was communicated to the petitioner through the District Authorities on 16-1-96. It has been stated that the petitioners representation was decided expeditiously. ( 9 ) THE petitioner in para 18 of the writ petition stated that he was served with a copy of the report/order of the Advisory Board on 31-1-96 in Jail. It has been stated that the petitioners representation was decided expeditiously. ( 9 ) THE petitioner in para 18 of the writ petition stated that he was served with a copy of the report/order of the Advisory Board on 31-1-96 in Jail. The report of the Advisory Board was put up before the Governor of the State and the petitioner was communicated about the order of the State Government confirming the detention on 3-8-96. ( 10 ) IN para 11 of the counter affidavit of Sri Harbhajan Singh, District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, it has been stated that the copy of the representation dated 18-12-95 was sent to the State Government on 20-12-95. The copy of the representation was also sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar on 18-12-95 requesting him for comments from the Sponsoring Authority. The S. S. P. Kanpur Nagar received it on 19-12-95 who in his turn, sent it to the S. O. PS Panki, Kanpur Nagar, who is the sponsoring Authority for detailed enquiry of the allegations made in the representation of the petitioner and for his comments on the basis of the said enquiry. The District Magistrate could not get any comments from the S. S. P. Kanpur Nagar, as such, he issued reminders, firstly on 23-12-95 and secondly on 2-1-96. The S. O. P. S. Panki, Kanpur Nagar also sent the representation of the petitioner with the comments after detailed enquiry on 5-1-96. The District Magistrate perused the comment prepared by the sponsoring Authority and after looking into the material on record, prepared his comments and sent it to the State Government on 6-1-1996, and the State Government rejected the representation on 11-1-96. The petitioner appeared before the Advisory Board on 15-1-96 on which date the petitioner was personally heard. The State Government confirmed the detention order on 30-1-96. Sri Harbhajan Singh, District Magistrate stated that other facts mentioned in paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 of the writ petition, may be replied by the State Government. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner placed the facts, narrated above, submitted that there was inordinate delay in consideration of the petitioners representation which was received on 20-12-95 and considered for the first time on 17-1-96. 13 and 14 of the writ petition, may be replied by the State Government. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner placed the facts, narrated above, submitted that there was inordinate delay in consideration of the petitioners representation which was received on 20-12-95 and considered for the first time on 17-1-96. It has been argued that unexplained inordinate delay in deciding the representation vitiated the detention order as it has violated the provisions of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. It has further been submitted the solitary incident emanating from personal enmity and such fact did not furnish any valid and just ground on which the order of detention under National Security Act could have been passed. It has also been argued that the solitary incident limited and confined to individuals occurring due to personal enmity has intensity, potential or effect to disturb Public order. The learned counsel submitted that the order impugned detaining the petitioner under the provisions of National Security Act is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional which amounts to curtailment and infringement of fundamental rights and liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India. ( 12 ) THE learned counsel pointed out that in the grounds of detention itself, the opposite party stated in the last but one paragraph of the grounds of detention that in case the representation, if any, is not received within three weeks, the Advisory Board shall not consider the representation on the ground of delay. A perusal of Section 10 of the Act shows that in every case where a detention order has been made under this Act, the appropriate Government shall, within three weeks from the date of detention of a person under the order, place before the Advisory Board constituted by it under Section 9 the grounds on which the order has been made and the representation, if any, made by the person affected by the order, and in case where the order has been made by an officer mentioned in Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 also the report by such officer under Sub-Section (4) of that Section. Thus, it is clear that any reference the matter mentioned, shall be placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks. ( 13 ) IT is not disputed that the comments of the Detaining Authority were not sent at the earliest. Thus, it is clear that any reference the matter mentioned, shall be placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks. ( 13 ) IT is not disputed that the comments of the Detaining Authority were not sent at the earliest. It would be relevant to consider the counter affidavit of Sri Riaz Ahmad, Station Officer, P. S. Panki. In para 2 of the said affidavit, Sri Riaz Ahmad stated that on 19-12-95 a dacoity was committed within the jurisdiction of P. S. Panki in which some valuable properties were looted. A case as case crime No. 253 of 1995 under Section 395/397, I. P. C. was registered in the absence of deponent and the representation was also received in the absence of the deponent because the deponent was in District Aligarh since 19-12-95 to 20-12-95 in connection with the evidence at the Court of O. J. M. Aligarh. After returning from Aligarh, Sri Riaz Ahmad took over the investigation of the case on 21st and 22/12/1995. He was very busy in the said criminal case and ultimately on 23-12-95 about 90% of the looted property was recovered and he could arrest three accused persons of the criminal case. Due to very urgent work, he was forced to leave the police station from 24-12-95 to 27-12-95. He was on leave during that period. He returned back on 28-12-95 and on 29-12-95 to 31-12-95, he was on V. I. P. duty as his Excellency Honble Governor had to come to the City of Kanpur. He further stated in para 3 of his counter affidavit that one group of Barelvies of Sunni Community was going to organise (Raza Conference) on 31-12-95 to which the other group of the same community were opposing the said organisation. In the said conference, some Honble Ministers including the Home Minister, Government of India namely Sri S. V. Chauhan, Sri Ram Lal Rahi and Sri Sebte Razi were to come. Some Honble Ministers reached in Kanpur City but there was very much tension in the community as there was very serious position for holding the said conference. He further stated that he was busy in that duty. Panic was created and the mob was pelting the stones over the Officers in which Addl. District Magistrate, City Magistrate, S. P. City and Addl. He further stated that he was busy in that duty. Panic was created and the mob was pelting the stones over the Officers in which Addl. District Magistrate, City Magistrate, S. P. City and Addl. City Magistrate Vth, Station Officer P. S. Panki, S. O. Chamanganj and so many other police officers including the constables of police and P. A. C. sustained injuries. Sri Riaz Ahmad also got his left foot fractured in the said incident. He was confined to bed from 4-1-96 to 5-1-95 and resumed his duty after making the detailed enquiry of the allegations in the representation submitted by the petitioner. Comments were sent by him to the District Magistrate on 5-1-96. ( 14 ) SRI Harbhajan Singh, District Magistrate in para 11 of his counter affidavit stated that as the deponent could not get the comment of the Senior Supdt. of Police, Kanpur Nagar as such he issued reminders firstly on 23-12-95 and secondly on 2-1-96. The Station Officer, Police Station Panki. Kanpur Nagar sent the representation of the petitioner alongwith his comment after making the detailed enquiry of the allegations made therein on 5-1-96. He stated that after receiving the comments, he prepared his comments after perusal of the material on record on 6-1-696 and sent it to the State Government on 9-1-96. ( 15 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner cited 1996 (2) JT (SC) 532 : (1996 Cri LJ 1981), Kunden Bhai Dulabhai Shaikh v. District Magistrate, Ahmedabad. The Honble Supreme Court in paras 18 to 21 of the said judgment, deprecated the delay of the detaining authority in disposal of the representation of the detenue. We consider it appropriate to reproduce the said paragraph. Turning now to the main question relating to the early disposal of the representation, we way immediately observe that this Court, in a large number of cases, has already laid down the principle in clear and specific terms that the representation has to be disposed of at the earliest and if there has been any delay in the disposal of the representation, the reasons for the delay must be indicated to the Court or else the unexplained delay or unsatisfactory explanation in the disposal of the representation would fatally affect the order of detention and in that situation, continued detention would become bad. This has been consistent view of this Court all along from its decision in SR. Abdul Karim v. State of West Bengal (1969) 1 SCC 433 : (1969 Cri LJ 1446 ). In re: Burga Show (1970) 3 SCC 696 : Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal (1970) 1 SCC 219 : (1970 Cri LJ 743), Shaik Hanif v. State of West Bengal (1974) 1 SCC 637 : 1974 Cri LJ 606, Raisuddin @ Babu Tamehi v. State of U. P. and Anr (1983) 4 SCC 537 : (1983 Cri LJ 1785): Frances Coralie Mullin v. W. C. Khamhra (1980) 2 SCC 275 : (1980 Cri LJ 548), Mohimuddin alias Moin Master v. District Magistrate, Beed, (1987) 4 JT (SC) 173 : (1987) 4 SCC 58 : ( AIR 1987 SC 1977 ) : Rama Dhondu Borade v. V. K. Saraf Commissioner of Police (1989) 2 JT (SC) 579 : (1989) 3 SCC 173 : (1989 Cri LJ 2119): Aslam Ahamad Zahira Ahmad Shaik v. Union of India, (1989) JT 2 (SC) 34 : (1989) 3 SCC 277 : (1989 Cri LJ 1447), Mahesh Kumar Chauhan alias Banti v. Union of India, (1990) JT 2 (SC) 592 (1990) 2 SCC 148 : (1990 Cri LJ 1507), right upto its reiteration in Gazi Khan alias Chotia v. State of Rajasthan, (1990) 3 JT (SC) 28 : (1990) 3 SCC 459 : (1990) Cri LJ 1420 ). Almost all these decisions were against considered in State of Tamil Nadu v. Vitdivel alias Sundaravadivel (1992) JT (5) (SC) 318 : (1992 Cri LJ 3578) and the above view was reiterated, which was repeated again in K. M. Abdulla Kunhi and B. L. Abdul Khader v. Union of India, Jt. (1991) (1) (JT) (SC) 216 : (1991) 1 SCC 476 : (1991 Cri LJ 790) and Julia Jose Mavely v. Union of India, 1992 Cri LJ 109 : ( AIR 1992 SC 139 ). In Mohimuddin and Ram Dhondus cases (supra) it was provided that inordinate and unexplained delay in the disposal of representation would make the continued detention of a person, illegal and unconstitutional. In Devi Lal Mahto v. State of Bihar, AIR 1982 SC 1548 : (1982 Cri LJ 2363), the continued detention was held to have become bad on account of the indifferent attitude of the Government in not attending to the representation for about 10 days. In Devi Lal Mahto v. State of Bihar, AIR 1982 SC 1548 : (1982 Cri LJ 2363), the continued detention was held to have become bad on account of the indifferent attitude of the Government in not attending to the representation for about 10 days. In spite of law laid down above by this Court repeatedly over the past three decades, the Executive, namely the State Government and its officers continue to behave in their old, lethargic fashion and like all other files resting in the secretariat for various reasons including red tapism, the representation made by a person deprived of his liberty, continue to be dealt with in the same fashion. The Government and its officer will not give up their habit of maintaining a consistent attitude of lethargy. So also, this Court will not hesitate in quashing the order of detention to restore the "liberty and freedom" to the person whose contention is allowed to become bad by the Government itself on account of his representation not being disposed of at the earliest. " ( 16 ) THE learned counsel also cited 1987 All Cri C 261, the Division Bench observed relying on a decision Harish Pawahe of Honble Supreme Court as under:"we would emphasise that it is the duty of the State to proceed to determine representations of the character above mentioned with utmost expedition, which means that the matter must be taken up for consideration as soon as such a representation is received and dealt with continuously (unless it is absolutely necessary to wait for some assistance in connection with it) until a final decision is taken and communicated to the detenue. This not having been done in the present case we have no option but to declare the detention unconstitutional. We think that if two days delay in non consideration of the representation or one days delay in non communication of the rejection was considered to be material and fatal to the detention order in the absence of a proper explanation, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of that decision in the present case where the delay has been made more. " ( 17 ) WE have perused the affidavits and counter affidavits and detailed necessary fact, which shows that there was inordinate delay in disposal of the petitioners representation at the earliest. " ( 17 ) WE have perused the affidavits and counter affidavits and detailed necessary fact, which shows that there was inordinate delay in disposal of the petitioners representation at the earliest. The explanation for the delay furnished by the respondents cannot be said to be reasonable which could be condoned. The Honble Supreme Court in Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh, (1996 Cri LJ 1981), (supra) in the para 21 was pleased to quash the detention order on account of the lethargic fashion in preparing the comments and deciding the representation. There was no justification for the respondents to have delayed the decision on the representation at the earliest which violated the provisions of Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution. ( 18 ) THE argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was a solitary incident limited and confined to individuals occurring due to personal enmity has no intensity, potential or effect to disturb public order, hence the order of detention is basically illegal and arbitrary and amounts to curtailments of personal liberty of the petitioner. ( 19 ) THE learned counsel cited in support of the contention, AIR 1970 SC 1228 : (1970 Cri LJ 1136) Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, judgment D/- 2-4-85 of the Division Bench in W. P. No. 4906 of 1985 Om Prakash v. State of U. P. AIR 1985 SC 18 : (1985 Cri LJ 487) Ajai Dixit v. State of U. P. and AIR 1975 SC 609 : (1975 Cri LJ 588) Ram Ranjan Chattarji v. State of West Bengal. ( 20 ) AS we have already considered the writ petition and validity of the detention order on the ground of delay in decision of the representation of the petitioner, and we have already held that there was no reasonable and acceptable explanation by the Sponsoring Authority for delay in not sending the comments to the State Government and the Advisory Board, there was inordinate delay on which ground alone, the detention of the petitioner is liable to be set aside. We do not consider it necessary to enter into the other arguments of the learned counsel that the controversy in the case was confined related to individual private dispute and animosity between the parties. We do not consider it necessary to enter into the other arguments of the learned counsel that the controversy in the case was confined related to individual private dispute and animosity between the parties. ( 21 ) IN view of the discussions made above, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioners representation was not decided at the earliest, there was inordinate delay on the part of the Station Officer, PS Panki, Kanpur Nagar, Sri Riaz Ahmad in sending the comments to the S. S. P. and the District Magistrate for recording the comments of the State Government and the Advisory Board. The explanation furnished is wholly unacceptable which shows callous and lethargic attitude giving no respect to the constitutional provisions and settled law of Honble Supreme Court for attempt to gate the representation decided at the earliest which violated the provisions of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. The impugned order of detention is hereby quashed. The petitioner may be set at liberty unless wanted in any other case. ( 22 ) THE Habeas Corpous writ petition is allowed with costs. Petition allowed.