By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged his detention under order dated 22nd Sep tember, 1998, passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 3 (2) of National Security Act, 1980, here- in-afler referred to as Act:. Copy of the order of detention has been filed as Annexure-1. Alongwith order of detention, petitioner was also served the ground on which basis respondent No. 2 formed his opinion for detaining the petitioner under the Act. 2. The brief facts stated in the grounds are that on 24th August, 1998 at 7. 00 p. m. while Dhirendra Jaiswai alias Tappu Jaiswai, President of Adarsh Pus-lakalay, Khojwa, Thana Bhelupur Varanasi was sitting in his office, he was murdered by petitioner and his com panions. It is also stated that ai the time aforesaid incident took place the elder brother of deceased Dhirendra Jaiswai. Ravindra Jaiswai was also present in the library, some persons namely, Gajendra Pratap Singh, Rajewa Kesari, Parmanand Gupta, Murari Gupta etc. were reading books. In this incident, Gajendra Pratap Singh was also hit and injured. It is also stated that the adjoining to the aforesaid Adarsh Library there is a coaching centre known as K. R. S. Coaching Centre where the students are given coaching. On ac count of the incident mentioned above, the public order was disturbed. Commo tion and fear prevailed all around and for restoration of the public order, P. A. C. and armed guard were posted. Considering that the incident is very sensitive, the post mortem and other necessary actions were performed under the heavy security. It has also been said in the grounds that for this incident Case Crime No. 289 of 1998 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 I. P. C. was registered in Police Station Bhelupur. It has also been stated that the petitioner is a person of criminal nature and he has criminal history behind him. One Case Crime No. 207 of 1998 under Section 379, I. P. C. is pending. It has been further stated that the petitioner is presently confined in jail but he has moved an applieation seek ing his release on bail on 14th September, 1998. He is making effort to get the bail and there is likelihood that he may be granted bail. Hence order of detention is necessary to prevent the petitioner from indulging in future which may disturb the public order. He is making effort to get the bail and there is likelihood that he may be granted bail. Hence order of detention is necessary to prevent the petitioner from indulging in future which may disturb the public order. Petitioner was also informed that he has right to make representation to the State Government, Advisory Board and the Central Government. Such repre sentations may be submitted through Su perintendent, District Jail. Petitioner was also informed that he has a right to appear in person before the Advisory Board, if he wishes so, this fact may also be communi cated through Jail Superintendent. It ap pears that the aforesaid order of detention dated 22nd September, 1998 wasapproved by the State Government under Section 3 (4) of the Act on 27th September, 1998. Same day matter was reported to the Central Government under Section 3 (5) of the Act. Petitioner submitted his repre sentation on 7-10- 98 addressed to the Central Government as well as to the State Government. So far as the representation addressed to the State Government is concerned, it was forwarded on 12-10-98 and wan received by the State Government on 14-10-98. The representation was rejected after consideration by the State Government on 20ih October, 1998. 3. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board of 15-10-98. Petitioner was heard by the Advisory Board personal ly on 29-10- 98. The report of the Advisory Board indicated that there was sufficient cause for detaining petitioner. Opinion of the Advisory Board was received by the State Government on the same day. 4. The representation dated 7-10-1998 of the petitioner was received by the Central Government on 30th October, 1998 through District Magistrate. On this representation certain information was sought from the State Government on 2nd November, 1998. The requisite informa tion was received on 9-11- 98. After all material was put up before the Home Min ister on 11-11 -98. The representation was rejected by Home Minister on 17th November, 1998. 5. In this petition, counter-affidavits have been filed by R. A. Khan, Under Secretary to the Government, Home and Confidential Department, for respondent No. 3, Sri L. B. Tiwari, the then District Magistrate, Varanasi has filed his own af fidavit as respondent No. 2 and Sri D. S. Yadav Deputy Jailor, District Jail, Varanasi has filed affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 1. Counter-affidavit has been filed by Bina Prasad, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi for respondent No. 4. 6. We have heard Sri D. S. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned A. G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri S. K. Rai for respondent No. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of detention of the petitioner on various grounds. He has also challenged the con tinued detention of the petitioner as illegal on the ground that there was inordinate and unexplained delay in deciding repre sentation of the petitioner by the Central Government. We propose first to consider the question of delay in deciding representation of petitioner by the Union of India. The dates are undisputed that the representation of the petitioner was filed on 7-10-98 but it was received by the Central Government on 30th October, 1998 i. e. after 22days. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that therc is absolutely no explanation for this long delay as to why the representation of the petitioner was withheld for such a long time. Learned Counsel has also submitted that before the Home Minister the representation was placed on 12th November, 1998 as the representation was complete with all comments and requisite materials, it could be considered and decided same day or within a day or two but it was rejected on 17th November, 1998 i. e. after five days. It is submitted that this delay was not explained and on account of these two unexplained delays the detention of the petitioner has been rendered illegal. Sri Mahendra Pralap Singh, learned A. G. A. , on the other hand, submitted that the ex planation is required for that delay which is unreasonable. However, in the present case, the delay at the stage of Home Mini ster in deciding representation cannot he termed to be unreasonable. It has also been submitted that the representation of the petitioner, in all probability, must have been despatched expeditiously and there may be delay for which respondents cannot be held responsible. 7. We have thoroughly considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. It has also been submitted that the representation of the petitioner, in all probability, must have been despatched expeditiously and there may be delay for which respondents cannot be held responsible. 7. We have thoroughly considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. The detaining authority, in paragraph No. 17 of his affidavit, has stated that the representation of the petitioner was received through jail authorities on 7-10-98 and thereafter it was found necessary to obtain police report before preparing the parawise com ments. The police report was received on 10-10-98 then parawise comments were prepared and the same was sent to the State Government on 12-10-1998 through special messenger. However, the respon dent No. 2 has not said a word in his counter-affidavit about the dates on which the representation of the petitioner was forwarded to the Central Government. We have perused paragraphs No. 26 and 27 of the writ petition where there is a specific pleading that the representation was sub mitted to the jail authority for being for warded to the State Government as well as to the Central Government and the Ad visory Board. The representations were not forwarded expeditiously and they were not decided, as required in law, ex peditiously but respondent No. 2 in his counter-affidavit has keep silence. For bet ter appreciation paragraphs No. 17 and 18 of the counter-affidavit of Sri I. B. Tiwari, the then District Magistrate, respondent No. 2 are being reproduced below: "17. That in reply to the contents of paras 26 and 27 of the petition, it is submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioner was received through the jail authorities on 7-10- 98 and thereafter it was found necessary to obtain police report before preparing the parawise comment, the police report was received on 10-10-98 then the parawise comments was prepared and the same was sent to the State Government on 12-10-1998 through special Messenger. It is further submitted that the aforessid representation was rejected by the State Government and the information was received through Radiogram message dated 23-10-1998 and the petitioner was informed through the jail authorities. The date of hearing before the Advisory Board was 29-10-1998. The allegations contrary to it in para under reply are incorrect and hence denied. 18. It is further submitted that the aforessid representation was rejected by the State Government and the information was received through Radiogram message dated 23-10-1998 and the petitioner was informed through the jail authorities. The date of hearing before the Advisory Board was 29-10-1998. The allegations contrary to it in para under reply are incorrect and hence denied. 18. That the allegations made in paras 28 to 31 of the petition relates to the Slate Govern ment as well as Central Government. " It cannot be disputed that in forward ing the representation of the petitioner to Central Government there was long delay of 22 days which required explanation from the respondent No. 2 but as no ex planation has been given, in our opinion, this delay by itself is sufficient to render continued detention illegal. 8. In our opinion, the delay has also been caused by the Home Minister in deciding the representation. Repre sentation was placed before the Home Minister on 12th November, 1998 com plete with all comments and requisite material. It could be decided within a day or two. However, it was rejected on 17th November, 1998 i. e. after five days. The explanation in paragraph No. 8 of the counter-affidavit filed by Bina Prasad is that 14th and 15th November, 1998 were holidays. In our opinion, such explanation based on one or two holidays falling in between cannot be accepted. We have come across several cases ol preventive detention, where representations were decided by Central Government on holidays. However, even if, for arguments sake, the explanation is accepted, three days delay reamined unexplained which rendered the continued detention of petitioner illegal. Honble Supreme Court in case oirajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. , JT 1998 (8) SC 598, in paragraph No. 9 has held that the range of delay is not very material. Even long delay may be ex plained and even short delay," if remained unexplained, it shall render the continued detention illegal. Paragraph No. 9 of the aforesaid judgment is being reproduced below: "the position, therefore, now is that if delay was caused on account of any indifference of lapse in considering the representation such delay will adversely affect further detention of the prisoner. In other words, it is for the authority concerned to explain the delay, if any, in disposing the representation. In other words, it is for the authority concerned to explain the delay, if any, in disposing the representation. It is not enough to say that the delay was very short. Even longer delay can as well be explained. So the test is not the duration or range of delay, but how it is explained by the authority concerned. " 9. In the above case, Apex Court held the continued detention illegal, as four days delay was found unexplained. In our opinion, the present case is squarely covered by the view expressed by Honble Supreme Court and the pclitioner is en titled for the relief. As petitioner is en titled to succeed on the ground that there was inordinate and unexplained delay in deciding his representation by respon dents, it does not appear necessary to deeide other questions argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 10. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. As continued detention of the petitioner has been held to be illegal, respondents are directed to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith if his detention is not required in any other case. 11. After aforesaid judgment was delivered, learned A. G. A. Sri Mahendra Pratap made an oral application under Art. 134-A (b) of the Constitution, on behalf of State Government, that this Court may certify under Articles 132 and 133 that the case involves substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution and in any case substan tial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by Hon. Supreme Court with regard to questions of delay in deciding the representation by the Central Government under Section 14 of the National Security Act so that State Government may file appeal before Honble Supreme Court. 12. We have considered the submis sion of the learned A. G. A. However, in our opinion, as Honble Supreme Court in number of judgments has already expressed opinion that delay in deciding the representation shall vitiate the detention, no substantial question of law either of general importance or as to the inter pretation of constitution is involved in the present case. On question of delay in deciding representation and its effect on detention is now well settled by various judgments of Honble Supreme Court. The prayer to grant certificate is accord ingly, refused. On question of delay in deciding representation and its effect on detention is now well settled by various judgments of Honble Supreme Court. The prayer to grant certificate is accord ingly, refused. Certified copy of the order shall be supplied to the learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within a week. Petition allowed. .