D. K. TRIVEDI, J. ( 1 ) BY means of the instant Habeas Corpus writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 16-4-1997 by which the petitioner was detained by the District Magistrate. Deoria under Section 3 (2) of National Security Act, 1980. The said detention order was served on the petitioner in jail on 17-7-1997 because at that time he was in jail in Case Crime No. 26 of 1997 pertaining to P. S. Madarwur. District Deoria. ( 2 ) THE impugned detention order was challenged by the petitioner on several grounds including that the impugned detention order suffers from the voices of non-application of mind as well as consideration of extraneous material. He further contended that the State Government as well as the Central Government failed to consider the representation of the petitioner expeditiously and therefore the petitioners detention is vitiated. Apart from this, it is also pointed out that the detenu has also been deprived of making an effective representation to the Authorities concerned as envisaged under Article 22 (5) of Constitution of India. ( 3 ) IN support of the first ground regarding extraneous consideration, the learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that he specifically in paras 39 to 45 of the writ petition has pointed out the allegations made by the Sponsoring Authority to the District Magistrate without any material. In the report submitted by the Station House Officer of P. S. Madanpur. District Deoria, it is pointed out that seeing the criminal history of the detenu from the years 1994 to 1997, it is evident that the detenu had no regard for law or public order. It is also alleged that the detenuts family life was of very low standard and his father was also a man of criminal propensity. It is also alleged that from the very beginning, he used to hurl Bombs and Katta and also the fact that the police always remained in search of his father. It is said that the detenu started living with criminals and he did not persue his education. It is also alleged that he also followed to the footprints of his father. It is also alleged that the detenu acted just like a mad elephant and further he never hesitated to assault any persons including officers or police personnel. It is said that the detenu started living with criminals and he did not persue his education. It is also alleged that he also followed to the footprints of his father. It is also alleged that the detenu acted just like a mad elephant and further he never hesitated to assault any persons including officers or police personnel. The Station Officer in the sponsoring report described the detenu as a very dangerous man comparing him with a mad elephant and pointed out he has no hesitation to give blow to anybody including the officers as well as police personnels. The question for consideration is that as to whether the detenus childhood passed among criminals because his father was also a man of criminal propensity and further he himself used to take liquor and due to this he had caused terror in the society. ( 4 ) IN view of the facts stated above that all these facts have been alleged in the report of the S. H. O. and further the said report is also placed before the Detaining Authority and admittedly the same has been considered by the Detaining Authority, therefore, in our opinion the impugned detention order is vitiated because there is nothing on the record to show that any material was placed before the Detaining Authority is support of the allegations mentioned above. ( 5 ) THE Government advocate appearing on behalf of the State, stated that the above mentioned facts have been mentioned to show the conduct of the detenu and the fact that the detenu has negative view about law and public order. As pointed out above admittedly all these facts have been considered but there is no material on the record to show as to on what basis it is said that the detenus father was a man of criminal propensity and the detenu used to live with criminals from his childhood. There is nothing on the record to show that the detenu conducted himself just like a mad elephant with rage and he never hesitated to kill anybody including the police personal. It is difficult to accept that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was proper or was not affected by the fact of extraneous consideration. There is nothing on the record to show that the detenu conducted himself just like a mad elephant with rage and he never hesitated to kill anybody including the police personal. It is difficult to accept that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was proper or was not affected by the fact of extraneous consideration. There is no doubt that the abovementioned facts have not been mentioned in the grounds of detention but admittedly the said facts-find place in the report of the Station House Officer and further the same have been placed and considered by the Detaining Authority and therefore, in our opinion the facts must have affected his mind as well as opinion about the conduct of the detenu. As pointed out above the abovementioned facts mentioned by the Station House Officer relate to the character of the detenu and shown him a very dangerous man, and if the Detaining Authority has considered the ground keeping in mind that the detenu is a very dangerous man as shown by the Station House Officer then, we can say that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority might have been influenced to some extent by these averments. It cannot be said that the Detaining Authority even after going through its averments was not influenced and has passed the impugned detention order without any influence from the report submitted by the Station House Officer. In our opinion the abovementioned facts submitted by the Station House Officer have sufficient potentiality for affecting the decision of the Detaining Authority and if the allegations are sufficient to affect the potentiality of the decision of the Detaining Authority, then the same is liable to be struck down on the ground consideration of extraneous materials. Apart from this no material has been placed in support of these allegations, therefore, the detenu has also been deprived of making an effective representation to the Authorities concerned. ( 6 ) THE Honble Supreme Court in case of Mehboob Khan Nawab Khan Pathan v. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad and Anr. , took a view that if the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind properly and has considered extraneous materials then the order of detention is liable to be struck down. ( 6 ) THE Honble Supreme Court in case of Mehboob Khan Nawab Khan Pathan v. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad and Anr. , took a view that if the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind properly and has considered extraneous materials then the order of detention is liable to be struck down. The relevant observations are as under: 117 It is, thus demonstrably shown that the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind properly confining his consideration only with reference to incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention and has mechanically passed these orders taking into consideration various extraneous matters, namely the incidents other than those shown in the grounds of detention especially incidents under Serial Nos. 5 and 6 of Annexure TDT with which the detenues have no direct or indirect connection or participation. We, Therefore, agree with the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that these three detention orders suffer from the vices of non -application of mind and extraneous consideration. The counterargument advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the Detaining Authority has drawn his subjective application only on the materials mentioned in the grounds of detention and passed these detention orders by proper satisfaction of mind to these materials and as such the impugned orders are not vitiated, cannot be accepted for the reasons mentioned above. 8. Lastly it has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been deprived of making effective and purposeful representations as envisaged under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India to the Authorities concerned since the Detaining Authority for bringing them within the definition Section 2 (c) has taken into consideration certain extraneous matters with which the petitioners have no connection whatsoever. This submission, in our view cannot be easily brushed aside as having no force. Again the Honble Supreme Court in a case of Vashisht Narain Karwaria v. State of U. P. and Anr. , relied upon the case of Mehboob Khan Nawab Khan Pathan (supra) and took a view that:10. This submission, in our view cannot be easily brushed aside as having no force. Again the Honble Supreme Court in a case of Vashisht Narain Karwaria v. State of U. P. and Anr. , relied upon the case of Mehboob Khan Nawab Khan Pathan (supra) and took a view that:10. The above averments made in the above two letters, the copies of which are furnished to the detenu alongwith grounds of detention unequivocally and clearly spell out that the detenu is a hardened criminal having a gang under his control often committing heinous crimes, that many cases against the detenu are registered in various police stations and that he is in the habit of committing offences. No doubt, these averments are not made mention of in the grounds of detention. But can it be said that these materials placed before the Authority might not have influenced the mind of the Detaining Authority in taking the decision detaining the detenu? In our view, the above averments which are extraneous touching the character of the detenu though not referred to in the grounds of detention, might have influenced the mind of the Detaining Authority to some extent one way or other in reaching the subjective satisfaction to take the decision of directing the detention of the detenu. As tightly pointed out by Mr. Jam had these extraneous materials not been placed before the Detaining Authority, he might or might not have passed this order. Therefore, we have to hold that the detention order is suffering from the vice of consideration of extraneous materials vitiating the validity of the or ( 7 ) IN view of the facts stated above, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. Apart from this, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner detenus representation has not been considered expeditiously also finds force. Admittedly, the detenu made a representation on 28-4-1997, and the same was forwarded by the District Magistrate, Deoria alongwith the comments to the State on 1-5-1997 and thereafter, the same was received by the State on 2-5-1997. There is nothing on the record to show as to what action has been taken in between 2nd May, 1997 to 20-5-1997. Admittedly, the detenu made a representation on 28-4-1997, and the same was forwarded by the District Magistrate, Deoria alongwith the comments to the State on 1-5-1997 and thereafter, the same was received by the State on 2-5-1997. There is nothing on the record to show as to what action has been taken in between 2nd May, 1997 to 20-5-1997. It is said that the office of the State Government put up a detailed note on the representation on 20-5-1997 in between the period on the copy of the representation was sent to the Advisory Board as well as the Central Government but there is nothing on the record to explain as to what the State Government was doing from 2-5- 1997 to 20-5-1997. Similarly, the Central Government in his affidavit pointed out that the representation dated 28-4-1997 was received by the Central Government on 6-5-1997. It is alleged that the representation was immediately processed but it was found that certain vital informations were necessary and therefore a crash wireless message was sent on 7-51997 to the State Government. The State Government when failed to give reply then a reminder was sent on 28-5-1997. It is said that the required information was received by the Central Government on 16-6-1997 and thereafter, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 20-6-1997. There is no explanation on the record to show as to why the required information has not been sent to the Central Government in spite of the reminder and a crash wireless message. It is not disputed that the Honble Supreme Court as well as this Court in a large number of the cases, has already laid down the principle for early disposal of the representation. It is also laid down that if there was a delay, the same must be indicated and explained to the Court otherwise un-explained delay or un-satisfactory explanation in disposal of the representation could fatally affect the order of detention. For this purpose the relevant cases are S. K. Abdul Karim and Ors. v. State of West Bengal Rais Uddin v. State of U. P. Mahesh Kumar Chauhan v. Union of India Devi Lal Mahato v. State of Bihar, and Kundan Bhai Dula Bhai Shaikh v. District Magistrate, Ahmedabad. For this purpose the relevant cases are S. K. Abdul Karim and Ors. v. State of West Bengal Rais Uddin v. State of U. P. Mahesh Kumar Chauhan v. Union of India Devi Lal Mahato v. State of Bihar, and Kundan Bhai Dula Bhai Shaikh v. District Magistrate, Ahmedabad. In all the abovementioned cases, it has been held that continued detention of the detenu would become bad on account of non-disposal of the representation with the reasonable time. It is strange thing that in spite of the settled proposition of the law, the State Government as well as concerned officers continued to delay the disposal of the representation without any reasoning. Similarly, the representation which was made to the Central Government, could not be disposed of for want of required information from the State Government. As pointed out above, the Central Government through a crash wireless message required some information but no such information was supplied to the Central Government and again the Central Government sent a reminder on 28-5-1997 for requisite information but even then no material was supplied and finally the information was supplied which was received by the Central Govt. on 16-6-1997. There is nothing on the record to show that there were the reasons for not supplying the required information to the Central Government. ( 8 ) THE Honble Supreme Court in a case of Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh (supra) took a view that the Central Government failed to take decision on the representation at an early date with the obvious consequence that the petitioners right under Article 22 (5) of Constitution of India read with Section 8 of the Act was violated. The relevant portion of the judgment runs as under: 23 Apart from the above, the representation dated 2-9-1995, which was made to the Central Government, could not be disposed of for want of comments from the State Government. It will be noticed that this representation was lying with the State Government from 2-9-1995 to 27-9-1995 and it was on that date that it was sent to the Central Government which received it on 4- 10-1995. The Central Government, inspite of its telegrams and reminders, was not furnished the comments by the State Government for over a month. The comments by the State Government were-received by the Central Government on 6-11-1995 and the representation was disposed of on 8-11-1995. The Central Government, inspite of its telegrams and reminders, was not furnished the comments by the State Government for over a month. The comments by the State Government were-received by the Central Government on 6-11-1995 and the representation was disposed of on 8-11-1995. This again is a glaring example of the lethargy on the part of the State Government as a result of which petitionerts representation could not be disposed of ex-peditiousiy by the Central Government with the obvious consequence that the petitioners right under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution read with Section 8 of the Act was violated. T ( 9 ) IN the instant case, the representation of the petitioner was received by the Central Government on 6-5-1997. Thereafter the said representation was processed but some vital informations were required by the Central Government and therefore, a crash wireless message dated 7-5-1997 was sent to the State Government but the State government did not care to sent any reply to the said crash message. The Central Government thereafter, send a reminder on 28-5-1997 but in spite of all these, the State Government did not send any information to the Central Government and finally, the Central Government received the said information on 16-6-1997 and thereafter the detenus representation was disposed of by order dated 20-6-1997. The delay caused by the Central Government or State Government fatally affected the detention order. Under the Constitution, it is guaranteed that if any representation is made then the same be disposed of expeditiously without any delay. As pointed out above, there is delay in disposing of the representation of the detenu and further no satisfactory explanation was given for this delay. In these circumstances, on this ground also, the impugned detention order is not sustainable. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, the instant writ petition is allowed. The impugned detention order dated 16-4-1997 contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition, is hereby quashed. Let the petitioner/detenu be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in any other case. Petition allowed. .