Dalveer Bhandari,j. (Oral) ( 1 ) THE petitioner has preferred TO this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed inter alia that the writ of habeas corpus and declaration be issued quashing the detention order dated 12. 8. 1996 issued by the Joint Secretary, Government of India under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities 1974. The order has been issued with a view to prevent the petitioner from smuggling goods and also preventing from engaging and transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the detention order on various grounds. The first ground which has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is delay in disposal of representation. ( 2 ) IN reply to the writ petition, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by Mr. K. L. Sharma, the Joint Secretary, COFEPOSA in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Janpath, New Delhi. In the counter affidavit, it is admitted that the representation dated 16. 9. 1996 was received on 17. 10. 1996. It is mentioned that from 17. 10. 1996 to 27. 10. 1996, the concerned Under Secretary was on official tour. No explanation whatsoever has been given for subsequent dates, i. e. , 28, 29, 30 and 31st October, 1996 though, admittedly these were the working days. The counter affidavit is totally silent about it. It is mentioned in the counter affidavit that on 1. 11. 1996, para-wise comments were called from the sponsoring authorities. Again, no explanation has been given regarding 4th and 5th November, 1996 which were working days. It is mentioned in the counter affidavit that para-wise comments were prepared and forwarded by the sponsoring authority. It is mentioned that on 7. 11. 1996, comments were received from the COFEPOSA Unit. On 11. 11. 1996, the representation of the petitioner was rejected and on 13. 11. 1996, the detenu was informed about the rejection of his representation. ( 3 ) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court in catena of cases have clearly laid down that undue and unexplained delay in deciding the petitioner s representation would be in clear violation of the constitutional obligation and provision under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. 11. 1996, the detenu was informed about the rejection of his representation. ( 3 ) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court in catena of cases have clearly laid down that undue and unexplained delay in deciding the petitioner s representation would be in clear violation of the constitutional obligation and provision under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. ( 4 ) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court in Rama Dhondu Borade Vs V. K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police and Others; (1989) 3 Supreme Court Cases 173 quashed the detention order because of unexplained delay of ten days. ( 5 ) SIMILARLY, in the case of Gazi Khan @ Chotia Vs State of Rajasthan and Another; (1990) 3 Supreme Court Cases 459, their Lordships have quashed the detention order because there was seven days unexplained delay. ( 6 ) SIMILAR view was expressed by their Lordships in Francis Coralie Mulin Vs W. C. Khambra and Ors. ; AIR 1980 Supreme Court 84, Harish Pahwa Vs State of U. P. and Others; AIR 1981 SC 1126 , Aslam Ahmed Sahira Ahmed Sadik Vs UOI and Ors. ; JT 1989 (2) Supreme Court 34 and Pratul Kumar Sinha Vs State of Orissa; JT 1989 (2) Supreme Court 578. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, there is hardly any explanation of delay of 27 days in deciding the representation of the detenu. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Smt Kamlabai Vs Commissioner of Police, Nagpur and Others; JT 1993 (3) Supreme Court 666. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down that the delay by itself is not a fatal if there is an explanation. However, the short delay cannot be given undue importance having regard to the administrative actions. This case has no application to the facts of the instant case because there is a long delay in deciding the representation and the delay has remained unexplained. ( 8 ) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court have consistently taken the view that undue and unexplained delay is in clearly violative of the constitutional obligation covered under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. Those cases would stand on different footings where there is convincing explanation for the delay in disposal of the representation. This case is of undue and unexplained delay in considering the petitioner s representation. Those cases would stand on different footings where there is convincing explanation for the delay in disposal of the representation. This case is of undue and unexplained delay in considering the petitioner s representation. Consequently, the detention order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. Accordingly, I quash the impugned detention order. The petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith in case he is not required to be detained in custody in any other case or cases. Consequently, the Rule is made absolute and the writ petition is allowed and disposed of.