Judgment V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.: 1. Petitioner herein challenges the order passed by the first respondent herein dated 4.7.1998 under the provisions of Sec.3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 directing the detention of one Amanullah, who is said to be the relative of the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting prejudicial to the public order. 2. Along with the order, the detenu was supplied with the grounds for detention, which suggest that the petitioner was having nexus with banned out fit called A-1 Umma and was responsible for the riots, which took place in the City of Coimbatore. It is also suggested in the grounds that on 10.2.1998, the said Amanullah was arrested by the police party of Vepary Police Station and at that time, he was found in possession of 400 electrical detonators and 750 ordinary detonators. 3. It will not be necessary for us to go into the details of the grounds, as the challenge is only on a singular ground of delayed consideration of the representation sent on behalf of the detenu. Learned counsel very fairly conceded that the representation sent on behalf of the detenu dated 24.7.1998 was expeditiously considered by the State Government and has been rejected. He has absolutely no complaint regarding the same. However, the learned counsel points out that at the same time he had sent the representation to the Central Government, which had failed to consider it expeditiously and there was an inordinate delay in consideration of that representation. It is on this ground that the detention is challenged. 4. At the out set, it must be first clarified that beyond mentioning in ground No.a that the representation dated 24.7.1998 to Government has not been considered by the Governments expeditiously, nothing more has been suggested. But the task of the petitioner becomes very easy in as much as the counter has been filed by the Central Government wherein it is accepted that the said representation was received by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 11.8.1998. It is then explained that it was processed and some information was required. The crash wireless message was sent and a subsequent reminder dated 2.9.1998 was also sent. It is then explained that it was processed and some information was required. The crash wireless message was sent and a subsequent reminder dated 2.9.1998 was also sent. It is then pointed out that the information was received from the State Government on 7.9.1998 and then the said information as well as the representations were worked out by the Ministry and by its officers like Under Secretary, etc. between 9.9.1998 and 11.9.1998. It is then pointed out that the matter was put up before the Joint Secretary and he, after considering the matter, put up the same to Honourable Home Minister on 11.9.1998 and the Honourable Home Minister himself after duly considering the same, rejected the representation on 25.9.1998. It is then explained that whatever time was taken in considering the representation was on account of non availability of information from the State Government, which information was received only on 7.9.1998. 5. It seems as per the explanation given by the Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State Government that the Detaining Authority to whom the State Government also had asked for certain information in order to consider the representation made to the State Government on behalf of the detenu, had also sent the information to the Central Government on 7.9.1998. It then seems that after the information was worked out and the file was considered by the Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary and other officers, ultimately the Honourable Home Minister has rejected the representation on 25.9.1998 and has chosen to inform the detenu on 30.9.1998. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf the petitioner, there is no explanation to this delay between 11.9.1998 and 25.9.1998 offered by the Central Government in its counter. 6. Considering the question of delay, it is a settled principle that there is no time limit set up anywhere. There is a consensus that where the representation is considered by the State Government expeditiously, the Central Government, who also has the right to consider the representation under the provisions of the said Act, must consider it expeditiously and without wasting any time in the unnecessary callous procedure. It is held by the Apex Court in Abdu Salaams case, 1990 Crl.L.J.1502, that in such a situation, there should not be any negligence or callous inaction or avoidable red tapism on the part of the Central Government. It is held by the Apex Court in Abdu Salaams case, 1990 Crl.L.J.1502, that in such a situation, there should not be any negligence or callous inaction or avoidable red tapism on the part of the Central Government. In the Abdu Salaams case, the Apex Court had refused to find fault with the Central Government as it came to the finding that the representation in that case was considered expeditiously and there was no negligence or callous inaction on the part of the Central Government nor was any red tapism involved in the consideration of the representation. 7. Therefore, the real test which would apply in a situation like the present on would be as to whether there is any inordinate delay in the part of the Central Government in considering the representation. The observations of the Apex Court in 1993 S.C.C. (Crl.) 913, are as follows: “The delay by itself is not a ground which proves to be fatal, if there is an explanation. However the short delay cannot be given undue importance having regard to the administrative actions. We do not think that the delay in this case is so inordinate as to warrant interference.” 8. It will be seen in 1993 S.C.C. (Crl.) 913 that the Central Government, which has received the representation, had sought information by its wireless message on 19.5.1992. Further the information was sought calling for the remarks and the matter was concluded by the Central Government only on 15.7.1992. The delay was much more in that case and yet considering the administrative exigencies and accepting the explanation offered, the Apex Court had held that there was no undue delay in considering the representation. The situation is more or less similar here. 9. In this case, the Central Government has sought for the comments and got the necessary information on 7.9.1998 from the watchful Detaining Authority, who simultaneously sent information to the State Government as also to the Central Government. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the Central Government had to act with alacrity after receiving the information, which it did, inasmuch as the representation was disposed of on 25.9.1998 i.e., within eighteen days. There is one small explanation offered by the Central Government even for the period between 11.9.1998 when the matter was posted before the Honourable Minister and 25.9.1998 when the Honourable Minister ultimately passed the order rejecting the representation. There is one small explanation offered by the Central Government even for the period between 11.9.1998 when the matter was posted before the Honourable Minister and 25.9.1998 when the Honourable Minister ultimately passed the order rejecting the representation. The said explanation is that there were four holidays in between these 14 days. We are satisfied with this explanation and keeping in mind the principles laid down in the above cases, as also taking note of the busy schedule of the Honourable Home Minister, we hold that there is no inordinate delay nor any callous inaction or slack attitude on the part of the Central Government and there is also no red tapism involved. On the other hand, the Central Government has disposed of the representation with alacrity that is expected of it. 10. Besides this contention, no other contention has been placed before us. In that view of the matter, we hold that the petition has no merits. 11. In the result, this petition is dismissed.