Judgment N.Rai and B.P.Sharma JJ. 1. The issues involved in both these writ applications are the same and, as such, they are being disposed of by this common order, though they were heard on two different dated. Cr. W.J.C. No. 319 of 1998 was heard under the heading For Hearing whereas Cr. W.J.C. No. 396 of 1998 was heard for final disposal at the stage of admission. In both the writ petitions, orders of detention dated 26.12.1997 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhojpur under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) has been challenged. 2. The ground for detention of the petitioners of both the petitions is that their activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and security of life and property of public of that area. The order of detention was approved by the State Government in both the cases on 3rd of January 1998 and the same was confirmed under Section 12(1) read with Section 13 of the Act on 26th of May 1998 in case of petitioner of Cr. W.J.C. No. 319 of 1998 and on 12th of June 1998, in case of petitioner of Cr. W.J.C. No. 396 of 1998. It further appears that their cases were sent to the Advisory Committee and the Committee also opined for their detention and thereafter, the order was confirmed under Section 12(1) read with Section 13 of the Act. 3. The petitioner of Cr W.J.C. No. 319 of 1998 filed a representation on 6.4.1998 in terms of the provisions contained under Section 8 of the Act before the competent authority and the said representation was rejected and communicated on 27th of April 1998, vide Annexure-E to the counter-affidavit. In case of petitioner of Cr. W.J.C. No. 396 of 1998, the representation was filed on 22nd of April 1998 and the same was rejected on 21st May 1998. Thus, in case of petitioner of Cr. W.J.C. No. 319 of 1998, there is delay of 21 days and in case of petitioner of Cr. W.J.C. No. 396 of 1998, there is delay of more than a month. 4. Thus, in case of petitioner of Cr. W.J.C. No. 319 of 1998, there is delay of 21 days and in case of petitioner of Cr. W.J.C. No. 396 of 1998, there is delay of more than a month. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners have a constitutional right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and statutory right under Section 8 of the Act for consideration of their representation without delay and the said right has been infringed in these cases, as their representations were considered after a long delay and there is no explanation for the same. Learned Counsel appearing for the State stated that after receipt of the representation, the Department has taken step to call for the relevant document from the concerned authorities and thereafter considered the representations and rejected the same which were communicated to the petitioners. He further submitted that there is no delay and, as such, there is no infringement of either constitutional or statutory rights of the petitioners. 5. It is well settled that right to make a representation against the order of detention is not only a constitutional right but statutory right as well. Article 22(5) of the Constitution provides that the detenu shall be given earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention. This is implicit in the said provision that the representation should be considered at the earliest and the non-consideration of the representation at the earliest, makes the order of detention invalid in the eye of law. In the present cases as stated above, in one case there is delay of about 21 days and in the second case of more than a month. 6. Counter-affidavits have been filed in both the cases and the only statement made in the counter-affidavits is that after the receipt of the representation, they were considered and rejected as also communicated to the petitioners. The copy of the order rejecting the representation has been annexed with the counter-affidavit. There is no averment in the counter-affidavit explaining the delay in considering the representation. The copy of the order rejecting the representation has been annexed with the counter-affidavit. There is no averment in the counter-affidavit explaining the delay in considering the representation. In case some explanation would have been given, then this Court would have gone into the question whether the delay is a valid reason or not but in absence of any such explanation it has to be inferred that the representations were considered by the State authorities in a most casual manner ignoring the constitutional as well as statutory mandates, contained in Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 8 of the Act. 7. The importance of consideration of the representation at the earliest has been reiterated by the Apex Court times without number. Reference in this connection may be made to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh V/s. Distt. Magistrate Ahmadabad and others, (1996) 3 SCC 194 : 1996 (2) BLJR 914 wherein it has been held that if there is delay in disposal of the representation reasons must be stated. In the present case, as stated above, there is no explanation and, as such we are of the view that the delay in disposal of the representation has fatally affected the order of detention and, accordingly, the detention order has to be declared bad in the eye of law. 8. Accordingly, the order of detention as well as the orders of approval and confirmation of the said order are held to be illegal and the same are accordingly quashed in both the cases. Petitioners are directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 9. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed.