JUDGEMENT - S.S. PARKAR, J.:---This petition has been filed by the detenu who was detained under the provisions of National Security Act, 1980. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging his detention under the provisions of this Act on various grounds. 2.The petitioner-detenu was ordered to be detained by the order dated 22nd March, 1996, issued by the Commissioner of Police, respondent No. 1 herein, under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The copy of the said order is annexed to the petition as annexure 'A'. Annexure 'B' to this petition are the grounds dated 22nd March, 1996, for clamping down the order of detention on the petitioner. 3.Various grounds challenging the aforesaid detention of the petitioner have been taken in the petition. We propose to dispose of this petition on the ground of delay in considering the representation made by the detenu to the Central Government as raised in paragraph 'D' of the said petition. It cannot be disputed that although the order was passed under the provisions of National Security Act, 1980, the detenu has got right to make representation to Central Government who has got power to revoke the detention order under section 14 of the said Act. The State Government is also obliged under sub-section (5) of section 3 to make a report within seven days to the Central Government about the order made under section 3 of the Act together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particular, as in the opinion of the State Government have a bearing on the necessity for the order. 4.It is contended by Mr. Tripathi that the aforesaid order of detention was served on the petitioner on 24th March, 1996. Thereafter representation dated 3rd June, 1996 was made to the Central Government and although the said representation was served on the Central Government, so far no communication has been received either by the detenu or his lawyer from the said Government about the decision taken by the said Government on the representation of the detenu. 5.The Union of India has been impleaded as respondent No. 3 in this petition. 5.The Union of India has been impleaded as respondent No. 3 in this petition. Although the appearance has been filed on behalf of the Union of India, no affidavit has been filed so far on behalf of the Union of India pointing out whether the said representation was considered or not and whether any communication in that behalf was sent to the detenu. 6.The affidavit has been filed by the Desk Officer, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai, which is dated 2nd of December, 1996. The said affidavit, in paragraph 3(iv), states that the State Government had in compliance with the provisions of section 3(5) of the National Security Act sent report to the Government of India on 2nd April, 1996 which report was received by that Government on 5th April, 1996. The para 2 of the said affidavit states that a wireless message dated 10th June, 1996 regarding the representation made on behalf of the detenu by his advocate Shri U.N. Tripathi was received from the Government of India. By the said message the Government of India had requested the State Government to send parawise remarks on the representation and factual information regarding actual date of detention, date on which grounds of detention were supplied to the detenu and the opinion of the Advisory Board. The State Government had immediately on 12th June, 1996 sent wireless message to the Government of India intimating the factual information in reply to the query raised by the Central Government and that the Commissioner of Police i.e. detaining authority was requested to send his parawise remarks on the representation of the detenu directly to the Government of India. 7.It is further stated in the affidavit of the State Government that Commissioner of Police was requested to send parawise remarks to the Government of India immediately and that the Commissioner of Police had forwarded his parawise remarks to the Government of India vide his letter dated 17th June, 1996. The respondent No. 1, Commissioner of Police, has also filed affidavit dated 20th November, 1996, where of course there is no reference to the same. 8.There is no doubt, nor it is disputed on behalf of the respondents that the detaining authority or the Government to whom the representation has been made is under the obligation to consider such representation and also communicate their decision to the detenu at the earliest opportunity. 8.There is no doubt, nor it is disputed on behalf of the respondents that the detaining authority or the Government to whom the representation has been made is under the obligation to consider such representation and also communicate their decision to the detenu at the earliest opportunity. This right of early consideration of the representation made by the detenu has been considered by the Supreme Court in number of decisions. Article 22(5) of the Constitution makes it obligatory on the authority to communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order of attention has been made and afford him the earliest opportunity of making representation against the said order. Similar provision is made under section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 which cast an obligation on the authority making the order of detention to communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order has been made and afford him the earliest opportunity of making representation against the order to the appropriate Government. 9.Our apex Court in the case of (Smt. Shalini Soni v. Union of India and others)1, reported in A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 431 has held that the obligation imposed on the detaining authority by Article 22(5) to afford to the detenu the earliest opportunity of making representation, carries with it the imperative implication that the representation shall be considered at the earliest opportunity. This view of the Supreme Court is reiterated in the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court. 10.The decisions of the Supreme Court galore on the point that the representation of the detenu must be considered by the Government as early as possible and without any delay on their part and in many decisions of the Supreme Court unexplained delay of few days in considering or communicating the decision on such representation to the detenu has been considered fatal to the continued detention and the continued detention has been set aside on the said ground. The fact that the order is passed by respondent No. 1 who is the Commissioner of Police does not affect the right of the detenu to make representation to the Central Government and the said representation being considered by that Government without any delay on the part of that Government. The fact that the order is passed by respondent No. 1 who is the Commissioner of Police does not affect the right of the detenu to make representation to the Central Government and the said representation being considered by that Government without any delay on the part of that Government. Sub-section (5) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, makes it obligatory on the State Government to report to the Central Government the fact of making or approving the order of detention by the State Government together with the grounds on which the order had been made and other particulars which in the opinion of the State Government have a bearing on the necessity for the order within a period of seven days. This provision is mandatory. Similarly under section 14 of the N.S.A. the Central Government has power to revoke the order passed under section 3(3) of the Act. 11.The detenu has, therefore, right to make representation to the Central Government and such representation cannot be an empty formality in the sense that representation has to be considered by the Central Government without any unexplained delay and also to communicate the decision of the said Government on the said representation to the detenu again without any unjustifiable delay. 12.The fact that the said representation was received by the Central Government is not disputed since pursuant to the receipt of the said representation by the Central Government, it had sent a fax message dated 10th June, 1996 to the State Government calling for comments from the detaining authority in order to consider the said representation. Pursuant to this request by the Central Government the Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai sent parawise comments to the Central Government by letter of 17-6-1996. 13.Although this petition filed by the detenu was served on the Union of India, neither the affidavit in reply to the petition has been filed nor anybody represented on behalf of Union of India either yesterday on 14th January, 1997 when the matter was being heard nor today when the judgment is being dictated to show as to whether and when such representation was considered and whether and when the decision on the said representation was communicated to the detenu. In the absence of the affidavit by the Central Government we accept the contention of the petitioner that his representation is not considered or at least decision on it is not communicated to the detenu. 14.In the aforesiaid facts and circumstances, as the law stands, we have no alternative but to quash the order of detention dated 22nd March, 1996 passed by respondent No. 1 Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai, under section 3(2) of the National Security Act on the petitioner-detenu. 15.We, therefore, set aside the said order of detention dated 22nd March, 1996 issued by the respondent No. 1, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, which is annexed as Annexure 'A' to this petition on account of unexplained delay in considering the representation of the detenu as the order of detention and the continued detention of the detenu is illegal. 16.The rule is, therefore, made absolute and the petitioner-detenu is ordered to be set at liberty unless he is otherwise required in any other case. There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. *****