S. K. AGARWAL, J. These three writpetition have been filed by Abdul Hafiz, asool Ahmad and Mohd. Shahid chal lenging their Detention under the provisions of National Security Act, Le. under Section 3 (2) of the Act. The deten tion orders against all the three petitioners were passed by the District Magistrate, Etah on 22-9- 1998. 2. We have heard Sri K. S. Rastogi, learned Counsel for petitioner Abdul Hafiz, Sri Virendera Bhatia, learned Counsel for the petitioners Mohd. Shahid and Rasool Ahmad. We have also heard learned Government Advocate and the learned Counsel for Union of India. 3. Since the facts in that the three writ petitions are almost common and in each of these petitions the anchor-sheet of the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the continued deten tion of the petitioner has been rendered bad in law on account of unexplained and inordinate delay in disposal of the repre sentation of the petitioners by the Central Government, we are disposing of the three petitions by a common judgment. 4. So far as the writ petition No. 104 (HC) of 1999 filed by Abdul Hafiz is concerned, it emerges from the counter-af fidavit filed by Bina Prasad on behalf of Central Government that two repre sentations were filed. The first repre sentation on his behalf was filed by his brother on 26-9-1998. The second one was submitted by the detenue himself on 14-10-1998. These representations were received in the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi on 7-10-1998 and 26-10-1998. Both these representations were ex amined and processed by the Home Minis try officials on 12-10-1998 and 26-10-1998. Certain vital information i. e. opinion of Advisory Board was required for deciding these representations. This information was sought through crash wireless messages dated 12-10-1998 and 28-10-1998. First crash wireless message was received by State Government on 14-10-1998. The State Government vide its radiogram dated 15- 10-1998 informed Central Government of the fact that the report of Advisory Board had not been received by them. The counter-affidavit filed by Bina Prasad, Under Secretary Union of India is completely silent regard ing this radiogram and its receipt. This fact is mentioned in the counter- affidavit filed by State Government though its Under Secretary R. A. Khan. 5. The report of the Advisory Board was received by the Central Government on 11-11-1998. The counter-affidavit filed by Bina Prasad, Under Secretary Union of India is completely silent regard ing this radiogram and its receipt. This fact is mentioned in the counter- affidavit filed by State Government though its Under Secretary R. A. Khan. 5. The report of the Advisory Board was received by the Central Government on 11-11-1998. Thus the Central Govern ment waited for this report regarding first representation for 30 days and for 14 days with respect to second representation. 6. On 16-11-1998, Deputy Secretary examined the case and prepared his com ments. The case was put up before Joint Secretary on 17-11-1998. In turn he presented the case before Home Minister on 17-11- 1998. The Home Minister rejected the representation of this detenue on23-ll-1998. 7. So far as the Home Minister is concerned 21 and 22-11-1998 were claimed as holidays. Similarly for officials of Ministry of Home Affairs, 14 and 15-11-1998 were claimed as holidays. From 11-11-1998 till 23-11-1998, 12 days were taken in processing and deciding the rep resentation. No other explanation is of fered for the rest of the days. The Home Minister took five days before he rejected the representation. 8. Petition No. 104 (HC) of 1999 was party heard on 11-5-1999 and hearing continued on 12-5-1999. The other two peti tions Le. writ petition No. 107 (HC) of 1998 and writ petition No. 108 (HC) of 1998 came up for hearing on 12-5-1999. All these detention orders arise from one solitary incident dated 20-8- 1998. 9. As already observed by us earlier, the detention orders in respect of the three detenues were passed by the detaining authority Le. District Magistrate, Etah on 22-9-1998. They were served upon the detenues on the same day. On this very day, the District Magistrate, Etah had also forwarded all the papers including the grounds for detention for consideration to the State Government, Lucknow. They were received by the Government on 23-9-1998. The detention order was approved by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 29-9-1998. All the relevant papers were also reported to the Central Government by the State Government on 29-9-1998. They were received by the Secretary, Min istry of Home Affairs, New Delhi on 1-10-1998. The petitioner Rasool Ahmads rep resentation dated 26-9-1998, addressed to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, was received by the District Magistrate, Etah, on 26-9-1998. All the relevant papers were also reported to the Central Government by the State Government on 29-9-1998. They were received by the Secretary, Min istry of Home Affairs, New Delhi on 1-10-1998. The petitioner Rasool Ahmads rep resentation dated 26-9-1998, addressed to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, was received by the District Magistrate, Etah, on 26-9-1998. The comments from Super intendent of Police, on the representation were sought by the District Magistrate, on the same day. After the receipt of the comments on 27-9-1998, the repre sentation was forwarded on 28-9-1998 to the Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Internal Security Depart ment, New Delhi. It was received in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 7-10-1998. Thus, it had taken, in transit, 9 days in reaching its destination Le. Ministry of Home Affairs. It was immediately processed and in the course of processing it was found that certain vital information was required for further consideration of the representation from the State Government. This necessary vital infor mation was sought through a crash wire less dated 9-10-1998 and by a subsequent reminder dated 28-10-1998, the required vital information was received by the Central Government on 9- 11- 1998 through the State Governments radiogram dated 7-11-1998. After the receipt of the said vital information, the case was put up before the Director, Minis try of the Home Affairs, on 12-11-1998, Le. 3 days after its receipt by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The representation was carefully considered and comments were prepared. It was put up before the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 12-11- 1998. The Joint Secretary also promptly considered the same and put up the same before the Home Minister, Government of India on that very day Le. 12-11-1989. The Home Minister con sidered the representation of the detenue and rejected the some on 17-11-1998. It had been brought to our notice that in between the span of 5 days excluding the date of decision, on the representation, two days were holidays. 10. In the writ petition No. 108 (HC) of 1998 filed by Mohammed Shahid, all other facts are identical except that the representation was received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 5-10-1998 and the vital information in this case was sought on the same day as in the case of Rasool Ahmad. 10. In the writ petition No. 108 (HC) of 1998 filed by Mohammed Shahid, all other facts are identical except that the representation was received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 5-10-1998 and the vital information in this case was sought on the same day as in the case of Rasool Ahmad. In between, on 14-10-1998 in reply to the crash wireless message seeking vital infor mation by Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, the State Govern ment had informed that the report of the Advisory Board which was sought is not available as yet. It will be pertinent to mention that the report of the Advisory Board was received on 7-11-1998, by the State Government. In Writ Petition No. 107 (HC) of 1998 filed by Rasool Ahmad, this information that the report of the Advisory Board is not available was com municated to the Government of India on 17-10-1998. Barring these two differences in the facts, there is hardly any difference in the dates and other facts. 11. The argument in support of this contention of delay in decision of these representations by the Central Govern ment rests mainly on the ground that there was delay in the transit Le. the repre sentation had taken 9 days in reaching the Ministry of Home. In this context, the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government by Sri R. A. Khan, Under Secretary states 30th of September, 1998, 1st and 2nd October, 1998 to be in the holidays. What is important is that the Government of Uttar Pradesh had reported the detention of the petitioner to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi on 1-10-1998. Thus, the benefit of any holiday in the circumstances cannot be made available to the Government of Uttar Pradesh for the purpose of transit as well. Moreover, the representations in the present case were sent by the District Magistrate to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs on 25-9-1998. Thus, in these circumstances, the receipt of the representation on 5-10-1998 in Writ Petition No. 107 (HC) of 1998 and 17-10-1998 in Writ Petition No. 108 (HC) of 1998 and Writ Petition No. 104 (HC) of 1998 clearly suggests that in one case it had taken 7 days and in the other case it had taken 9 days in reaching the Ministry of Home Affairs. 12. 12. So far as the despatch of these representations by the District Magistrate is concerned, it has taken only two days. The District Magistrate had received it on 26-9-1998 and had despatched the same to the State Government as well as to the Central Government on 28-9-1998. Thus, there is no delay so far as its despatch is concerned, it is affected clearly by three holidays intervening in between. They are 30-9- 1998, 1-10-1998 and 2-10-1998. Ex cluding these three days from this period of transit, the Home Ministry had received these representations within 3 days in one case and within 5 days in the other cases. In our opinion this does not constitute any delay so far as the period of transit is concerned. Moreover, the law enjoins on the State Government only a duty to report the factum of detention to the Central Government with the grounds on which the impugned orders were made within 7 days. Thus, there is no delay. 13. Coming to the next limb of the arguments on the points of delay in dis posal of the representation, it is argued that the period awaiting the vital informa tion was too long and such vital informa tion i. e. report of the Advisory Board, was not at all required in law for the decision of the representations of the detenues by the Central Government. 14. It has been held by the apex Court that the right to get his representation decided by the Central Government or the State Government is exclusive and inde- pendent of any decision of the repre sentation of the detenu by the Advisory Board. This wawas held to be a constitutional right of the detenue and in our opinion, the Central Government has to form its independent opinion and there was ab solutely no necessity for the Central Government to await the receipt of the report of the Advisory Board. It has further been held by the apex Court that if a repre sentation is made to the Central Govern ment by the person detained under the National Security Act, his representation is to be considered expeditiously and dis posed of with due promptitude and diligence and with a sense of urgency as inordinate and unexplained delay in the disposal of th, representation would vitiate the detention order. In this refer ence, two reported decisions of the Supreme Court Rama Dhondu Boarade v. V. K. Saraf. Commissioner of Police and others, 1989 (26) ACC 617 (SC) and the other case is Aslam Ahmad Zahire Ahmad Shaik v. Union of India and others, 1989 (26) ACC324 (SC), need reference. 15. In this context, reference to a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Pappu alias Avasan Singh v. Adhikshak Janpad Karagar, Mainpuri, 1999 (1) JIC 124:1999 L. Cr. R 23 (Allahabad), needs reference. It has held that "the Government without awaiting for the report of the Advisory Board has to con sider the representation and dispose it of at the earliest". The apex Court has also held in 1993 SCC (Crl.) 1126 that the report of the Advisory Board is not to be awaited for the disposal of the repre sentation. 16. In view of these decisions, the long await for the report of the Advisory Board by the Central Government for deciding the representations of the petitioners assumes significance. In these cases this period comes to nearly 30 days. 17. Section 3 (5) of the National Security Act confers power on the Central Government to consider the repre sentation of a detenu forwarded to it by him. This representation is to be con sidered by the Central Government indegendent of any report of the Advisory oard or the decision of the State Govern ment. In two petitions i. e. Writ Petition No. 107 (HC) of 1998 and Writ Petition No. 108 (HC) of 1998, the information was sought by the Central Government from the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 9-10-1998. Another reminder was sent on 21-10-1998. The information was received on 9-11-1998 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Thus, the Central Government has waited for the receipt of the report of Advisory Board as vital informa tion for a full one month. Thereafter it had taken about 9 days furhter in the decision of the representation which were rejected by the Home Minister on 17-11-1998. In Writ Petition No. 104 (HC) of 1999, it was re quired on 12-10-1998 andreceivedon 11-11- 1998 Le. 30 days. The representation was rejected on 23-11-1998 in this case Le. 12 days taken in this case. Thereafter it had taken about 9 days furhter in the decision of the representation which were rejected by the Home Minister on 17-11-1998. In Writ Petition No. 104 (HC) of 1999, it was re quired on 12-10-1998 andreceivedon 11-11- 1998 Le. 30 days. The representation was rejected on 23-11-1998 in this case Le. 12 days taken in this case. In our opinion, this inordinate delay in processing the repre sentation for consideration by the officials of the Home Ministry is against the provisions of law especially when oil 14-10-1998, 15-10- 1998, 17-10-1998 the in formation about no report of the Advisory Board with the State Government was al ready communicated to Central Govern ment. It renders the continued detention of the petitioners illegal. 18. Moreover, in the present case, the two representations made by Mohammed Shahid and Rasool Ahmad were processed and put up before the Home Minister on 12-10-1998. The Home Minister has decided the representations on 17-10-1998. Only two days/. e 14th and 15th November, 1998 were the holidays in between. The question still remains as to what happened on the other days for which the repre sentation remained lying on the table of the Home Minister. The counter-affidavit filed by Sri Bina Prasad remains con spicuously silent about these dates. 19. In view of these circumstances, we are of the opinion that even considera tion of the representation by the Central Government was not expeditious enough to render the continued detention of the detenues valid in the eyes of law. In this context, reference to a decision of the apex Court in the case of Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, 1999 (38) ACC 312 (SC), is necessary. The observations of the apex Court are quo ted asunder: "the position, therefore, now is that if delay was caused on account of any indifference or 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. 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 the authority concerned. " 20. 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 the authority concerned. " 20. The contention of the learned Counsels for the respondents that none of these detenues are entitled to any benefit as there are hardly any latches on the part of Central Government or the State Government does not hold any water in view of our discussions made above. 21. In view of the above discussions, we find that the continued detention of the three petitioners is rendered illegal by ab normal delay on the part of Central Government in deciding their repre sentations. The writ petition Nos. 104 (HC) of 1999, 107 (HC) of 1999 and 108 (HC) of 1999 are allowed. The continued deten tion of the petitioners on the basis of above detention orders, all dated 22- 9-1998, are hereby quashed. We further direct the petitioners to be released forthwith if not otherwise wanted in any other case. Petitions allowed. .