D. K. , TRIVEDI AND I. P. VASISHTH, JJ. ( 1 ) THE petitioner prays for a writ of habeas corpus quashing the detention order dated 10-12-1996, passed by the District Magistrate, Paratapgarh under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act. contained in Annexure No. 1. The gist of the averments propagated by the petitioner, is that at the relevant time in December 1996 he was in Jail as an under trial in connection with a murder case registered vide case crime No. 374/96 P. S. Kunda. Pratapgarh under Section 302 I. P. C. His bail application was rejected by the C. J. M. , Pratapgarh on 6-12-1996. No such petition was, however, made in the Sessions Court. It was pleaded that on 9- 12-1996, Station House Officer P. S. Kunda proposed his detention on the ground that since the petitioner was trying to get himself released on bail, therefore, it was apprehended that in case of his success in that context he would be a hazard to public peace and order. His proposal was endorsed by the S. S. P. and submitted to the District Magistrate who passed the impugned order on 10-12-1996 and intimated it to the State Government. The latter also affirmed it on 17-12-1996: though during the meanwhile the order was duly executed and served on the petitioner on 10-12- 1996 itself. ( 2 ) ELABORATING his grievance the petitioner contended that on 25/26-12-1996 he submitted his representation to the various concerned authorities and appropriate Governments i. e. the State as well as Central Government through the Jail authorities. The State Government received it on 6-1- 1997 and rejected it on 9-1-1997. They, however, informed the Central Government also vide their communication dated 7-1-1997 received by the latter on 10-1-1997. The Central Government sent a crash message on 18-1-1997 asking certain vital information from the State Government with regard to petitionerts detention but the State Government slept over the issue arid did not respond till the 2nd reminder was sent to them on 12-3-1997, Ultimately the Central Government received the information on 20-3- 1997 and rejected the representation on 27-3-1997. ( 3 ) THE impugned order was sought to be assailed on the ground of abuse of powers vested in the District Magistrate. It was stated to be arbitrary and lacking in application of mind. ( 3 ) THE impugned order was sought to be assailed on the ground of abuse of powers vested in the District Magistrate. It was stated to be arbitrary and lacking in application of mind. The submission was that it was in continuation to his detention in jail and the District Magistrate did not address himself to the totality of the situation which never warranted his detention particularly when he was already undergoing the ordeal of trial in the murder case and had not moved the trial Court for bail. Both the Central and State Governments filed their separate affidavit through dividual officers. The affidavit of the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh is also on record. ( 4 ) ON going though the entire available data and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties we are not inclined to sustain the impugned order. It suffers from the lack of application of the requisite awareness to the issue of subjects detention under extra ordinary circumstances curtailing his right to liberty. From the affidavits, both the Central and State Government, filed through Rohtas Singh and C. P. Maurya it is abundantly clear that the Central Government had received the petitioners representation on 10-1-1997 alongwith the comments of the State Government but being not satisfied with those comments per se sought certain information from the State Government by sending a crash message on 18-1-1997 but their communication was not responded by the State. A reminder was thereafter sent on 7-2-1997. Forced by the circumstances the Central Government sent another reminder on 12-3-1997 and it was only in response thereto that the State Government submitted the requisite information on 20-3-1997. All these circumstances expose the authorities of the Central Government in poor light by way of their casual approach towards the issue of an individual liberty. ( 4 ) ON going though the entire available data and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties we are not inclined to sustain the impugned order. It suffers from the lack of application of the requisite awareness to the issue of subjects detention under extra ordinary circumstances curtailing his right to liberty. ( 4 ) ON going though the entire available data and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties we are not inclined to sustain the impugned order. It suffers from the lack of application of the requisite awareness to the issue of subjects detention under extra ordinary circumstances curtailing his right to liberty. From the affidavits, both the Central and State Government, filed through Rohtas Singh and C. P. Maurya it is abundantly clear that the Central Government had received the petitioners representation on 10-1-1997 alongwith the comments of the State Government but being not satisfied with those comments per se sought certain information from the State Government by sending a crash message on 18-1-1997 but their communication was not responded by the State. A reminder was thereafter sent on 7-2-1997. Forced by the circumstances the Central Government sent another reminder on 12-3-1997 and it was only in response thereto that the State Government submitted the requisite information on 20-3-1997. All these circumstances expose the authorities of the Central Government in poor light by way of their casual approach towards the issue of an individual liberty. ( 5 ) SURPRISINGLY enough the Central Government which on the one hand asserts having communicated the rejection of petitioners representation through the jail authorities on 27-3-1997 would have the Court sustained its view point that under the National Security Act. 1980 it is under no statutory obligation to inform the detenu about the fate of his representation. This court is of the considered opinion that under the scheme of Section 14 of the Act ibid read with Article 22 (5) of the Constitution every authority which is competent to approve, rescind or revoke the subjects detention on the receipt of his representation is obliged to consider it on merit, dispose it off at the earliest and apprise him of the result. For out views we draw support from the Apex Court observation in the matter of Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh v. District Magistrate, Ahmedabad and others. ( 6 ) HENCE for the reasons recorded above we held that the petitioners continued detention is unwarranted and illegal. He is therefore, directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted for any other cases. Costs on parties Petition allowed. .