JUDGMENT A.V. Savant, J. - Heard all the learned Counsels; Mr. Gupte for the petitioner, Mr. Bagwe for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Satpute for respondent No.4. 2. The petitioner is the detenu who has been detained under the order dated 13th February. 1996 (Exhibit "B" page 22) passed by the first respondent. Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, in exercise of his powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. The order of detention issued on 13th February. 1996 was admittedly served on 16th September. 1996, but they are not concerned with the delay in the execution of the order of detention. Several grounds of detention have been mentioned on the basis of which several contentions have been raised in the petition. It is not necessary to go into the details of the same. 3. The only contention canvassed before us by Mr. Gupte is about the delay on the part of the Central Government in considering the representation dated 17th October. 1996 made by the petitioner. This point has been taken in ground (viii) of para 6 of the petition at page 14. It a appears that the representation was prepared at Bombay by the petitioner's Advocate and was sent from Bombay on 8th October, 1996 to the Superintendent of Jail. Nasik Road Central Prison. Nasik, where the detenu was detained. After obtaining the detenu's signature it was sent on 17th October. 1996 by the Superintendent of the Nasik Road Central Prison to Delhi and it was received by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India New Delhi on 22nd October. 1996. There is some ambiguity in the affidavit of Mr. Ishwar Singh. Desk Officer. Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India, New Delhi when we read paras 6 and 7 of the said affidavit. At the end of para 6 it is stated that on receipt of the representation on 22nd October. 1996 certain vital information required for consideration was called for from the State Government/Commissioner of Police Brihan Mumbai, through a crash wireless message dated 29th October. 1996. Though there is a delay of about one week in sending the crash wireless message. Mr. Gupte has not criticised this aspect of the matter. In the very next para i.e., para 7, it is stated that the required information was received by the Central Government from the Commissioner of Police. 1996. Though there is a delay of about one week in sending the crash wireless message. Mr. Gupte has not criticised this aspect of the matter. In the very next para i.e., para 7, it is stated that the required information was received by the Central Government from the Commissioner of Police. Brihan Mumbai on 28th October. 1996, as per the Commissioner's letter dated 25th October. 1996. We are at a loss to understand why the crash wireless message was sent on 29th October. 1996, if information was already received on 28th October. 1996 unless it is suggested that the information received was incomplete and hence the crash wireless message sought information on some additional points. The affidavit is not clear on this point but we leave the matter at the since no arguments have been advanced before us. 4. What Mr. Gupte has however, criticised is the unexplained delay at three subsequent phases. This is clear from the averments made in para 7 of the affidavit of Mr. Ishwar Singh. We find it convenient to reproduce para 7 which reads as under: “7. That the required information was received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 28-10-1996 vide the Commissioner of Police. Brihan Mumbal's letter dated 25-101996. On receiving the said information on 28-10- 1996, the case of the detenu was put up before, the Deputy Secretary. Ministry of Home Affairs on 31-10-1996 who carefully considered the same and with his comments put up the same before the Joint Secretary. Ministry of Home Affairs on 1-11-1996. The Joint Secretary considered the case and with his comments put up the same before the Special Secretary. Ministry of Home Affairs on 1-11-1996. It is stated that Special Secretary considered the matter and after processing the same put it before the Home Minister, Government of India on 4- 11- 1996. However, the case was returned by Home Minister on 13-12-1996 and he desired re-examination by the concerned Deputy secretary and was resubmitted to the concerned Joint Secretary on 31-12-1996. The Joint Secretary put it up to Special Secretary (ISP) on 1-1- 1997. The Special Secretary put it up to Minister of State for Home Affairs on 22-1-1997. The delay was on account of Home Minister reviewing the matter relating to NSA cases and deciding to delegate the work to Minister of State for Home. The Joint Secretary put it up to Special Secretary (ISP) on 1-1- 1997. The Special Secretary put it up to Minister of State for Home Affairs on 22-1-1997. The delay was on account of Home Minister reviewing the matter relating to NSA cases and deciding to delegate the work to Minister of State for Home. The Minister of State himself duly considered the case of the 'detenu and rejected the representation of the detenu on 27-1-1997. 5. It is clear from the above averments that the Deputy Secretary put up the matter before the Joint Secretary on 1st November. 1996 and the Joint Secretary considered the same and put it up before the Special Secretary on the same day i.e., 1st November. 1996. The Special Secretary then considered the matter and put up the same before the Home Minister. Government of India on 4th November. 1996. The case was returned by the Home Minister on 13-12-1996. This is the first phase of unexplained delay of which a grievance is made before us. Excluding the date of receipt viz. 4th November. 1996 and the date of return 13th December. 1996 the unexplained delay is of 38 days. There are no details given as to why 38 days were taken for return of the file except stating that the Home Minister desired re-examination or the case. 6. The second phase of unexplained delay evident from the averments in para 7 of the affidavit of Mr. Ishwar Singh is between 13th December, 1996 when the file was returned by the Home Minister and was re-examined by the Deputy Secretary who resubmitted the same to the concerned Joint Secretary on 31st December. 1996. Excluding the days 13th and 31st December. 1996, the unexplained delay is of 17 days. There is no explanation as to when the file was received by the Deputy Secretary. 7. The third phase of unexplained delay is between 1st January, 1997 and 22nd January. 1997. The Joint Secretary who received the me on 31st December. 1996 put it up before the Special Secretary on 1st January. 1997. The Special Secretary put it up before the Minister of State for Home Affairs on 22nd January. 1997. 7. The third phase of unexplained delay is between 1st January, 1997 and 22nd January. 1997. The Joint Secretary who received the me on 31st December. 1996 put it up before the Special Secretary on 1st January. 1997. The Special Secretary put it up before the Minister of State for Home Affairs on 22nd January. 1997. It is then stated that the delay was on account of the Home Minister reviewing the matter relating to NSA cases and deciding to delegate the work of NSA cases to Minister of State for Home. Para 7 ends with the statement that the Minister of State himself duly considered the case or the detenu and rejected the representation on 27th of January. 1997. Excluding the five days taken by Minister of State the complaint is of the 20 days between 1st January. 1997 and 22nd January, 1997 which is the unexplained delay. Thus it is contended that the total unexplained delay is (38 days + 17 days + 20 days) 75 days. 8. We have repeatedly reiterated that if the detenu has the right to make a representation to the Central Government there is a corresponding duty cast upon the appropriate Government to consider the representation expeditiously without avoidable delay and take a decision and communicate the same to the detenu as expeditiously as possible. We are dealing with preventive detention without trial. What is at stake is the liberty of a citizen in a State governed by rule of law. In this back ground we repeatedly requested Mr. Satpute as to whether he could enlighten us on the actual date of the decision taken by the Home Minister relating 10 delegation of power to the Minister of State for Home. We asked this because this explanation is mentioned before us repeatedly without giving date of the decision taken by the Home Minister and the actual delegation effected by a rule or a notification in favour of the Minister of State for Home who has actually decided the matter. Unfortunately, there is no response. 9. In the light of the averments made in para 7 of the affidavit of Mr. Ishwar Singh, we must proceed on the footing that initially the power vested with the Home Minister and it has actually been delegated to the Minister of State for Home. Unfortunately, there is no response. 9. In the light of the averments made in para 7 of the affidavit of Mr. Ishwar Singh, we must proceed on the footing that initially the power vested with the Home Minister and it has actually been delegated to the Minister of State for Home. This is clear because the matter was initially put up before the Home Minister on 4th November. 1996 and he returned the me on 13th December. 1996, since he desired re-examination of the case. It is not stated that during this unexplained delay of 38 days the Home Minister was contemplating delegation of powers to the Minister of State for Home. What is stated is that he desired re-examination of the case. The plea of the Home Minister thinking of reviewing the matter relating to NSA cases and deciding to delegate the work of NSA case to Minister of State for Home has been taken with reference to the subsequent stage when the Special Secretary put up the matter before the Minister of State for Home on 22nd January, 1997. It would, therefore, appear reasonable to assume that when the Special Secretary put up the file before the Minister of State for Home on 22nd January, 1997, the Home Minister had already delegated the powers to the Minister of State for Home. 10. We also requested Mr. Satpute to make the file available to us in one matter so that there may be some material explaining the delay at a particular stage in a given case. However. Mr. Satpute expressed his inability of producing the file on the ground that despite repeated messages no files were made available to him as far as the NSA matters are concerned. This has been our experience in a series of matters in this week. 11. Be that as it may on the ground of unexplained delay of as many as 75 days consisting of three phases: (i) 38 days unexplained delay between 4th November. This has been our experience in a series of matters in this week. 11. Be that as it may on the ground of unexplained delay of as many as 75 days consisting of three phases: (i) 38 days unexplained delay between 4th November. 1996 and 13th December, 1996, when the file was pending with the Home Minister, (ii) 17 days unexplained delay between 13th December, 1996 and 31st December, 1996, when the file was pending with the Deputy Secretary on its return by the Home Minister, and (iii) 20 days unexplained delay between 1st January, 1997 and 22nd January, 1997 when the file was pending with the Special Secretary we are of the view that the detenu's right to make a representation has been defeated and has been rendered nugatory. There is a failure on the part of the concerned Authorities to adhere to the mandate of expeditious disposal of the representation in matters of preventive detention when citizens are detained without trial. 12. On the above ground of unexplained delay, the petitioner must succeed. Hence, the order of detention dated 13th February, 1996 (Exhibit 'B' page 22) passed by the first respondent, Commissioner of Police Brihan Mumbai, is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenu is ordered to be released forthwith unless be is otherwise required to be detained. Rule made absolute, accordingly. Petition allowed.