JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who is the mother of the detenu Mohammed Mushtafq Abdul Gani Shaikh has impugned the detention order dated 4th November 1996 passed by the 1st respondent, the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, detaining the detenu under section 3(2) of the National Security Act. The detention order dated 4th November 1996 along with the grounds of detention bearing the same date was served on the detenu on 29-5-1998. 2. We have heard Mr. C.K. Talekar for the petitioner and Mr. S.R. Borulkar for respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Mr. H.V. Mehta, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 is absent. 3. Since, in our view, this petition deserves to be allowed on ground 8(q) and for the adjudication of the said ground a reference to the prejudicial activities of the detenu contained in grounds of detention is not necessary, we are not adverting to them. Ground 8(q), in short, is that on or about 17-6-1998 a representation on behalf of the detenu was forwarded to respondent No. 3, The Union of India; it was required to be disposed of expeditiously; and if there is any indifference in disposing of the same, the continued detention of the detenu would be rendered bad in law. 4. The contention of Mr. Talekar is that the return filed by Bina Prasad, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi wherein ground No. 8(q) has been replied in paras 6 7 clearly shows that there has been an inordinate-unexplained delay in the disposal of the said representation. In para 6 of the said return it has been mentioned that the representation dated 17-6-1998 from the detenu was received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 22-6-1998 through the Superintendent, Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik. The said representation was immediately processed for consideration and it was found that certain factual information was necessary to dispose of the same. Consequently through a fresh wireless message dated 24-6-1998 and reminder dated 30-6-1998 the said information was asked for. The said representation was immediately processed for consideration and it was found that certain factual information was necessary to dispose of the same. Consequently through a fresh wireless message dated 24-6-1998 and reminder dated 30-6-1998 the said information was asked for. In para 7 of the said return it has been mentioned that the required information was received by the Central Government on 15.7.1998 and the case of the detenu was put up before the Director, Ministry of Home Affairs on 17-7-1998 who after carefully considering it with his comments put up the said representation before the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, the same day. The joint Secretary considered the representation and put up the same before the Home Minister, Government of India on 20-7-1998, who was pleased to reject the same on 2-8-1998. 5. Ground 8(q) has also been replied to in some returns filed on behalf of the State but we do not think that there is any necessity to advert to them. We have considered the averments in paras 6 and 7 of the return filed by Bina Prasad. Even if the reply contained therein is accepted as gospel-truth there can be no getting away from the fact that there has been an inordinate delay of 13 days on the part of the Home Minister in disposing of the representation. No explanation has been furnished as to why it took the Hon'ble Home Minister 13 days to dispose of the detenu's representation. 6. It should always be borne in mind that preventive detention is a draconian piece of legislation. The law may permit it in extreme cases where the prejudicial activities of a person cannot be curbed by the ordinary law of the land but strict procedural safeguards have to be conformed to by the authorities. And one such safeguard is the detenu's right to make a representation at the earliest opportunity, as mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and an inherent obligation on the authority to whom the representation is preferred to dispose off the same at the earliest. In this connection it would be useful to advert to para 3 of the decision of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1981, S.C. page 431 (Smt. Shalini Soni v. Union of India and others)1. In this connection it would be useful to advert to para 3 of the decision of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1981, S.C. page 431 (Smt. Shalini Soni v. Union of India and others)1. The relevant part of the said paragraph reads thus: "Quite obviously, the obligation imposed on the detaining authority, by Article 22(5) of the Constitution, to afford to the detenu the earliest opportunity of making a representation, carries with it the imperative implication that the representation shall be considered at the earliest opportunity. Since all the constitutional protection that a detenu can claim is the little that is afforded by the procedural safeguards prescribed by Article 22(5) read with Article 19, the courts have a duty to rigidly insist that preventive detention procedures be fair and strictly observed. A breach of the procedural imperative must lead to the release of the detenu." 7. In the instant case regrettably the constitutional obligation to dispose of the representation at the earliest opportunity has been breached by the Hon'ble Home Minister because, admittedly he received it duly processed on 20-7-1998 and only rejected the same on 2-8-1998. Between the two dates there was a yawning gap of 13 days and to our dismay no explanation has been furnished in the return of Bina Prasad or in any other return as to why this tormentingly long time of 13 days was taken by the Hon'ble Home Minister in rejecting this representation. The returns lead to the irresistible inference that there were inordinate laches on the part of the Home Minister in disposing off the same. In our view due to these laches the fundamental right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been breached and his continued detention has been rendered illegal. 8. It would be pertinent to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of (Mrs. Venmathi Seivam v. State of Tamil Nadu and another)2, reported in J.T. 1998(4) S.C. 393 wherein while dealing with the question of delay in disposal of the representation, in para 4, the Supreme Court observed thus: "Though the delay is not long it has remained unexplained. Though the delay by itself is not fatal the delay which remains unexplained becomes unreasonable." (emphasis supplied). 9. Though the delay by itself is not fatal the delay which remains unexplained becomes unreasonable." (emphasis supplied). 9. It would also be relevant to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1990 Cr.L.R. page 414(S.C.) (Gazi Khan @ Chotia v. State of Rajasthan another)3, wherein in a preventive detention under the P.I.T.-N.D.P.S. Act on the ground of 7 days unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation, which period included two holidays, (Saturday and Sunday) the Supreme Court held that the authorities had not discharged the obligation of disposing off the representation at the earliest opportunity, as is implicit in Article 22(5) of the Constitution and consequently the continued detention became vitiated and the impugned detention order was quashed. 10. We would be failing in our fairness if we do not refer to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1993(3) S.C.C. 384 (Kamalabai (Smt.) v. Commissioner of Police, Nagpur and others.)4, cited by Mr. Borulkar, learned Counsel for respondents 1, 2 and 4. Mr. Borulkar urged that though in the said case there was an unexplained delay of 25 days on the part of the Central Government in seeking information from the State Government the Supreme Court did not fault the continued detention of the detenu as illegal. In our view, the said decision was on the facts of the said case. What also weighed with the Supreme Court, as is evident from para 5, was that the period of detention had almost come to an end. In our view, the said decision would not be applicable on the facts of the present case. Here admittedly the representation duly processed at all levels was received by the Home Minister on 20-7-1998 but yet for no explanation forthcoming from the Union of India was not disposed off by the Home Minister till 2-8-1998 on which date he rejected the same. We feel that on the facts of the present case the decision of the Supreme Court in Ghazi Khan @ Chotia's case (supra) would have application. 11. Before parting with this order we cannot restrain ourselves from expressing our anguish that in a preventive detention matter a greater urgency should have been shown by the Honb'le Home Minister in disposing off the representation. To our regret this is not the case here. 12. 11. Before parting with this order we cannot restrain ourselves from expressing our anguish that in a preventive detention matter a greater urgency should have been shown by the Honb'le Home Minister in disposing off the representation. To our regret this is not the case here. 12. In our view on account of the inordinate delay in the disposal of the detenu's representation by the Hon'ble Home Minister of India the detenu's continued detention has become illegal. 13. In this result this petition is allowed; the impugned detention order is quashed; and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case. Rule is made absolute. Petition allowed. -----