JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, A.C.J. 1. Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'detune') is in detention pursuant to the order of detention vide Annexure - 1 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Kalahandi u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short, the 'Act'). The order of detention was passed primarily on the ground that Petitioner was involved in several acts which were detrimental to public order and affected peace and tranquility of the society at large, more particularly the people in Statupada and Bazarpada areas. The order of detention was passed on 29..7.19.9.8 and the grounds of detention were furnished to the Petitioner- detune on 2.8.1998. 2. Mr. B. Pujari, learned Counsel for detune submitted inter alia that the order of detention cannot be maintained on two grounds, namely, (i) the detaining authority has not taken note of the fact that the detune was in custody on the date of detention; and (ii) the representations made by the detune have not been dealt with either by the State Government or by the Central Government and no order relating to his representation has been communicated to him. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the detaining authority, while no counter affidavit has been filed by either the State Government or the Central Government. Mr. R.K..Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate prayed for time to take illustration in the matter. We find that the writ application was filed on 18.3.1999 and on 24.3.1999 notices were issued and the learned Counsel for opposite parties was given notice of the application. Though more than three months have elapsed no counter affidavit has been filed by any of the opposite parties except opp. party -No. 1. This being a habeas corpus application, we are not inclined to accept the prayer for grant of time. 4. We shall first deal with the grievance relating to no disposal of the representation. So far as the question whether there was delay in disposal of the representation is concerned, same has to be considered in the background of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. A constitutional protection is given to every detune which mandated the grant of liberty to the detune to make a representation against detention, as incorporated in Article 22(5) of the Constitution. It also imparities the authority to whom the representation is addressed to deal with the same with utmost expedition. A constitutional protection is given to every detune which mandated the grant of liberty to the detune to make a representation against detention, as incorporated in Article 22(5) of the Constitution. It also imparities the authority to whom the representation is addressed to deal with the same with utmost expedition. The representation is to be considered in its right perspective keeping in view the fact that the detention of the detune is based on subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned, and infringement of the constitutional right concerned under Article 22(5) invalidates the detention order. Personal liberty protected under Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of constitutional values that it is the obligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. The stringency and concern of the judicial vigilance that is needed was aptly described in the following words in Thomas Pancham Dales' case: 1981 (6) OBD 376: Then comes the question upon the habeas corpus. It is a general rule, which has always been acted upon by the Courts of England, that if any person procures the imprisonment of another he must take care to do so steps, all of which are entirely regular, and that if he fail to follow every step in the process with extreme regular it the Court will not allow the imprisonment to continue. 5. "One of the pillars of liberty is that in English law every imprisonment is prima facie unlawful and that it is for the person directing the imprisonment to justify his act"- Lord Atkin recalled (Liversidge v. Anderson (1942) AC 206 at 245 (dissenting). The Constitution of India rings the same view. In a Habeas Corpus petition the burden of impugning the order no doubt rests on the detune but the legal burden or \he ultimate burden satisfying the Judge lean on the detaining authority. 6. Whenever there is executive invasion on personal liberty, the Court has to weigh in golden scales whether the personal liberty is to be placed at a high pedestal regardless of the social cost involved in the release of a possible renegade. Observations to similar effect were made by the Apex Court in ( Smt. Icchu Devi Choraria Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ). Observations to similar effect were made by the Apex Court in ( Smt. Icchu Devi Choraria Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ). Judged in this background, the question is whether the detention as directed in the instant case is one where the procedural sinews suffered from any weakness to warrant interference. 7. Here it may be placed on record that Article 22(5) of the Constitution enacts as follows: When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. 8. The right of representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is a valuable constitutional right and the object of the provision is the speediest consideration of this representation by the authorities concerned. It has been emphasized and re-emphasized by a series of decisions of the Apex Court (for instance, Sk. Abdul Karim and Others Vs. State of West Bengal, ; Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others. Raisuddin alias Babu Tamchi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, ; Mohinuddin alias Moin Master Vs. District Magistrate, Beed and Others Rama Dhondu Borade Vs. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police and Others, ; Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik Vs. Union of India and Others, ; Gazi Khan alias; Chotia Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others. Raisuddin alias Babu Tamchi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, ; Mohinuddin alias Moin Master Vs. District Magistrate, Beed and Others Rama Dhondu Borade Vs. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police and Others, ; Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik Vs. Union of India and Others, ; Gazi Khan alias; Chotia Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, : and Kundan Bhai Dula Bhai Shaikh v. District Magistrate Ahmedabad JT (1996) 2 (SC) 532, that a representation should be considered with reasonable expedition and it is imperative on the part of the every authority, whether one is merely transmitting or dealing with it, to discharge that obligation with all reasonable promptness and diligence without giving any room for any complaint of remissness, indifference or avoidable delay because the delay caused by slackness on the part of any authority, will ultimately result in delay in the disposal of the representation which in turn may invalidate the order of detention as having infringed the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, In Vijay Kumar's case (supra), the Apex Court observed that: The jail authority is merely a communicating channel because the representation has to reach the Government which enjoys the power of revoking the detention order. The intermediary authorities who are communicating authorities have also to move with an amount of promptitude so that the statutory guarantee of affording earlier opportunity of making the representation and the same reaching the Government is translated into action. The corresponding obligation of the State to consider the representation cannot be whittled down by merely saying that much time was lost in the transit. If the Government enacts a law like the present Act empowering certain authorities to make the detention order and also simultaneously makes a statutory provision of affording the earliest opportunity to the detune to make his representation against his detention, to the Government and not the detaining authority, of necessity the State Government must gear up its own machinery to see that in these cases the representation reaches the Government as quickly as possible and it is considered by the authorities with equal promptitude. All slackness in this behalf not properly explained would be denial of protection conferred by the statute and would result in invalidation of the order. In the case of Dhananjay Sharma Vs. All slackness in this behalf not properly explained would be denial of protection conferred by the statute and would result in invalidation of the order. In the case of Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and Others it was observed by the Apex Court as follows; Whenever a question is raised regarding the legal detention of citizen in a writ.of Habeas Corpus and the Court issues the rule of Nisi a duty is case on the State, through its functionaries and particularly those who are arrayed as Respondents to the writ petition, to satisfy the Court that the detention of the citizen was legal and in conformity not only with the mandatory requirements of the law but also with the requirement implicit in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. It is obligatory on the part of the Respondent State to place before the Court all relevant facts relating to the impugned detention truly, clearly and with utmost fairness through an affidavit. An affidavit in reply is required to be filed by the Respondent not as a mere formality but to truly assist the Court in drawing permissible inferences from the rival contentions. The right of personal liberty of a citizen is all too grievous and no one can be permitted to interfere with it except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The State owes an obligation to the Courts to place all relevant fact before the Court in all cases where interference is alleged by a citizen with his fundamental rights. 9. In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit filed by the detaining authority, it has been stated that the Petitioner had submitted representation for onward transmission to the State Government and the Central Government, and in paragraph 20 it has been stated that the representation of the Petitioner has been forwarded to the appropriate authority in time. This counter affidavit was filed on 21.5.1999. Annexure-A to the said counter affidavit shows that the Petitioner has submitted the representation for transmission on 31.8.1998. 10. Above being the position and there being nothing on record to show that the representation has been dealt with and was disposed of, the order of detention cannot stand. There has been clear violation of the constitutional protections provided under Article 22(5) of the constitutional protections provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. 10. Above being the position and there being nothing on record to show that the representation has been dealt with and was disposed of, the order of detention cannot stand. There has been clear violation of the constitutional protections provided under Article 22(5) of the constitutional protections provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. In the aforesaid background, it is not necessary to examine the second contention relating to validity of the order of detention when detune was already in custody. 11. The order of detention dated 25.7.1998 vide Annexure-I cannot be sustained and is quashed. Let the detune be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be in custody in connection with any other case. The writ application is allowed. B.P. Das, J. 12. I agree. Final Result : Allowed