JUDGMENT : ARUNKUMAR KANTILAL TRIVEDI, J. 1. to 3. xxx xxx xxx. 4. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned detention order passed by the respondent No. 2 dated 25-8-2000, on numerous grounds. It has been contended that the petitioner made representation against his detention vide letter dated 12-9-2000. That the respondent No. 1 rejected the said representation on or about 10-10-2000, but have caused inordinate delay in consideration of the said representation whereby the continued detention of the petitioner was rendered illegal, invalidating the impugned order. By the said representation, the petitioner had demanded certain documents consisting of Ration Cards and others. The petitioner was supplied some of the documents only and when the petitioner examined the documents supplied pursuant to the said representation, it was found that majority of the documents were so illegible that nothing could be made out from the said documents and as such the petitioner was deprived of a right to make an effective representation which has violated the Constitutional mandate under Article 22(5) and as such also the detention order is bad in law. 5. Shri H.R. Prajapati, learned Advocate for the petitioner has pointed out that vide ground (1) and (m) of the petition, the petitioner has specifically raised a contention regarding delay in consideration of the representation. That the District Magistrate has replied to the said contention by filing affidavit-in-reply dated 14-11-2000 through Shri P.R. Shukla, Deputy Secretary to Government Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in para 7. That it has been stated in the said affidavit that the representation dated 12-9-2000 received from the Advisory Board on 5-10-2000. Thereafter, Special Branch prepared the file of the same and placed before the Deputy Secretary on 9-10-2000 and on 10-10-2000, it was placed before the Secretary, who cleared it and thereafter the file was placed before the concerned Minister who cleared the file on 12-10-2000. 6. It is pertinent to note that affidavit of Shri P.R. Shukla though contained explanation of alleged delay in consideration of representation, but the explanation cannot be said to be satisfactory as no particulars are stated in the affidavit as to how the representation was dealt by the Special Branch after receiving on 5-10-2000 till 9-10-2000 on which date it was put up before Deputy Secretary. Not only that but there is no explanation to the effect that when the file of representation was put up before the Minister on 10-10-2000 why and how it took time upto 12-10-2000 for consideration. No explanation of the said delay would make the delay inordinate and fatal in the context of contention as held in the matter of Rajamal v. State of Tamilnadu and Ors. reported in AIR 1999 S.C. 684 . 7. Furthermore, the petitioner has tendered on record copies of the documents. Supplied by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner-detenu pursuant to his demand vide representation dated 12-9-2000. Perusal of the Xerox copy of the documents suggests that majority of the documents are so illegible that nothing could be made out from the same. That the said documents are Xerox copies of Ration Card issued to the fair price shop owed by the petitioner and the detaining authority has relied on the Ration Card and entries thereof regarding dates, quantity, months, etc. while considering the enquiry report of the alleged illegality committed by the petitioner. That the illegible documents amounts to non-supply of the documents claimed by the petitioner, which has violated the right of the petitioner to make an effective representation as provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and thereby also the impugned order is bad in law. 8. xxx xxx xxx. Rule made absolute.