R. R. K. TRIVEDI, J. ( 1 ) BY means of this habeas corpus writ petition, petitioner, Km. Daljit Lali has questioned the legality of her detention, under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide order dated 23-6-1999 passed by respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Agra. ( 2 ) ALONG with the impugned order of detention (Annexure III to the writ petition) petitioner was also served with the grounds of detention on which respondent No. 3 formed his subjective satisfaction for detaining the petitioner under the Act. The allegations in the grounds in brief are that on 30-3-1999 on the basis of the information received the Station Officer, Police Station Sadar Bazar arrested Bal Kishan Agarwal and Nasruddin and recovered from them fake currency notes of hundred denomination. On interrogation from the aforesaid two persons it was revealed that fake currency notes were printed by Sayed Mohd. Nadeem resident of Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh and the aforesaid two persons obtained notes from Sayed Mohd. Nadeem. They also stated that they can get the plant and machinery by which fake notes are prepared recovered. ( 3 ) AT the pointing out of accused Nasruddin the police force raided and searched the printing press of Syed Mohd. Nadeem on 30-3-1999 itself and recovered various mechanical equipments which were being used in preparation of fake currency notes and coins, fake degrees etc. Report to this effect was lodged in police station. ( 4 ) ON interrogation of Syed Mohd. Nadeem of Aligarh involvement of petitioner was also revealed that at the back portion of her house at Dehradun printing machine for preparing fake currency notes and cutting machine had been installed. On this information raid and search was conducted on petitioners house at Dehradun on 30-3-1999 itself in which 50 machinery parts and other equipments were recovered. A case was registered against the petitioner as case crime No. 322 of 1999, under Sections 232/234/235/236/239/241/242/243/420/447/468/ 471/153-A and 489-A, Indian Penal Code, P. S. Sadar, District Agra. Ambassador Car No. UP07/8474 and No. Plate GJ-B/4012 and two plates bearing No. BIA/8874 were recovered which was being used in committing crime. Police also recovered Rs. 12,000. 00 in cash and a bunch of keys. All the articles recovered were deposited in police station Sadar Bazar, Agra vide G. D. Report No. 17 at 11. Ambassador Car No. UP07/8474 and No. Plate GJ-B/4012 and two plates bearing No. BIA/8874 were recovered which was being used in committing crime. Police also recovered Rs. 12,000. 00 in cash and a bunch of keys. All the articles recovered were deposited in police station Sadar Bazar, Agra vide G. D. Report No. 17 at 11. 30 a. m. on 1-4-1999. Her involvement was also found in case crime No. 327 of 1999, under Sections 231, 232, 234, 235, 236, 239, 242, 243, 420, 467, 468, 471, 153-A and 489-A, ABCDE Indian Penal Code, P. S. Sadar, District Agra and case crime No. 611 of 1999, under Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act, P. S. Sadar, District Agra. ( 5 ) IT has also been stated in the grounds that petitioner has organisations in various cities of the country and there is a racket for preparing fake currency notes and their circulation in large scale is being done with a view to destroy the economy of the country. The news of recovery of fake currency notes, coins and certificates was published in prominent newspapers like Amar Ujala, Aaj and Danik Jagran. Investigating Officer also recorded statements of the various persons connected with transport, accounts and banks from which it came out that circulation of fake currency notes has created a problem to them. Long time is consumed at the counter in checking and ascertaining the genuineness of the notes. Same problem is being faced in the banks. The account holders are hesitant in accepting the currency notes and free and smooth flow of commercial activity has been badly affected which is prejudicial to the security of the State and to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. ( 6 ) IT has been further stated that after arrest petitioner was remanded to judicial custody in district jail, Agra but petitioner was trying hard to obtain bail from the Court. Bail application has been moved before Honble High Court. It has been stated that there is strong possibility of petitioner being released on bail and that after release on bail she shall again indulge herself in similar activities, which shall be prejudicial to the national economy and maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. Bail application has been moved before Honble High Court. It has been stated that there is strong possibility of petitioner being released on bail and that after release on bail she shall again indulge herself in similar activities, which shall be prejudicial to the national economy and maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. On the basis of the aforesaid detaining authority recorded his subjective satisfaction that in order to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and for maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community it is necessary to make an order directing that petitioner be detained. Petitioner was also informed that she has a right to make representation to the State Government, Advisory Board and Central Government against her detention and such representation may be sent through the Superintendent of District Jail, Agra. Petitioner was also informed that her case shall be referred to the Advisory Board for its opinion and she has a right to be heard personally, if she desires so, for this purpose also a representation may be submitted through the jail authorities. ( 7 ) THE impugned order of detention dated 23-6-1999 was approved by the State Government under Section 3 (4) of the Act on 3-7-1999, and copy of the detention order, grounds of detention together with all relevant papers were sent by the State Government to the Central Government on 4-7-1999 under Section 3 (5) of the Act. The case of the petitioner was referred to the Advisory Board on 3-7-1999. The Advisory Board heard the petitioner on 28-7-1999 and vide its letter dated 2-8-1999 communicated its opinion indicating that there was sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner. The State Government after examining the matter again together with the opinion of the Advisory Board confirmed the order of detention for the period of 12 months by the order dated 12-8-1999. ( 8 ) PETITIONER filed her representation against the order of detention on 9-7-1999, which was forwarded by the District Magistrate on 18-7-1999, which was received by the State Government on 21-7-1999. The State Government examined the representation of the petitioner and rejected the same on 23-7-1999, which was communicated to the petitioner through District Magistrate vide radiogram dated 26-7-1999. ( 8 ) PETITIONER filed her representation against the order of detention on 9-7-1999, which was forwarded by the District Magistrate on 18-7-1999, which was received by the State Government on 21-7-1999. The State Government examined the representation of the petitioner and rejected the same on 23-7-1999, which was communicated to the petitioner through District Magistrate vide radiogram dated 26-7-1999. ( 9 ) THE representation of the petitioner dated 9-7-1999 was received by the Central Government on 22-7-1999 through the District Magistrate, Agra. The representation was put up before the Under Secretary for consideration on 27-7-1999. Same day it was put up before the Joint Secretary, who carefully considered the representation and desired to obtain confidential report from the Intelligence Bureau regarding actual involvement of the petitioner in the case. The representation was then put up before the Union Home Secretary, who agreed with the Joint Secretary and called for a report from Intelligence Bureau. The report was received from the Intelligence Bureau in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 19-8-1999. On receipt of the report of Intelligence Bureau the representation was again put up before the Deputy Secretary on 19-8-1999, who with her comments put up the same before the Joint Secretary on 20-8-1999. The Joint Secretary with his comments placed the representation before the Home Secretary on 20-8-1999 who rejected the representation same day. ( 10 ) IN the petition counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. We have heard Shri C. P. Ghildhyal for the petitioner, learned AGA, Shri Mahendra Pratap for respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Shri K. N. Pandey for respondent No. 1. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner had let out her house at Dehradun to one Ram Pal Singh Yadav son of Bhanu Yadav alias Basudeo resident of village Shahpur, P. S. Jahanganj, district Aligarh for Rs. 800. 00 and tenancy started from 12-5-1998. The petitioner is not in any way concerned with the articles recovered. Reliance has been placed on the rent note dated 12-5-1998 filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Learned counsel has also submitted that satisfaction of the detaining authority that petitioner shall indulge herself in similar activities again if released on bail is based on no material. The petitioner is not in any way concerned with the articles recovered. Reliance has been placed on the rent note dated 12-5-1998 filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Learned counsel has also submitted that satisfaction of the detaining authority that petitioner shall indulge herself in similar activities again if released on bail is based on no material. It has been submitted that there is nothing on record to show that petitioner was ever involved in any criminal case and there is absolute lack of material to show that she had repetitive tendency to indulge herself in such criminal activities. Learned counsel has further submitted that Sayed Mohd. Nadeem was also detained under the Act vide order dated 16-6-1999. He challenged his detention by filing Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 35061 of 1999, which has been allowed by this Court on 6-3-2000 and Sayed Mohd. Nadeem has been released. It has been submitted that present petitioner is also entitled for the relief. A copy of the judgment has been placed before us. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the following judgments : (1) Rameshwar Shaw v. The District Magistrate, Burdwan, AIR 1964 SC 334 ; (2) Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah AIR 1986 SC 315 ; (3) Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, Bihar, AIR 1980 SC 2090; (4) N. Meerarani v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1989 SC 2027 ; (5) Anand Prakash v. State of U. P. , AIR 1990 SC 516 ; and (6) Bannalal Vahilda Chavla v. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 2542 . ( 12 ) LEARNED AGA, on the other hand, submitted that it is not correct to say that there was no material on record on which basis the detaining authority could have subjective satisfaction that petitioner shall indulge in similar activities which may be prejudicial to the maintenance of supply and service essential to the community. It has been submitted that detaining authority could have satisfaction on the basis of the material on record and from the nature of activity in which petitioner was found involved. It has been submitted that detaining authority could have satisfaction on the basis of the material on record and from the nature of activity in which petitioner was found involved. Learned AGA has taken us through the entire material recovered by the police from the house of the petitioner and submitted that petitioner was running a racket, which was involved in preparing and circulating fake currency notes and coins in the country and such activity posed a serious threat to the economy of the country on which the security of the State and maintenance of supply and service essential to the community is dependant. Learned counsel has further submitted that rent note relied on by the petitioner is in conflict with the averments made in writ petition and the representation filed by the petitioner and no reliance can be placed on such private document. It has also been submitted that in the present proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution this Court could not enter into the factual controversy of the nature raised by the petitioner. Learned AGA has also submitted that order of detention has rightly been passed and it does not suffer from any illegality. The representations filed by the petitioner have been considered and decided promptly by the State Government and the Central Government. In the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. ( 13 ) WE have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. A close scrutiny of the alleged rent note filed as Annexure I to the writ petition shows that it was an agreement for letting out back portion of the house of the petitioner known as 10 Prakash Lok Colony, Phase II, Dehradun in favour of one Ram Pal Singh Yadav. The agreement was for accommodation of a portion consisting of one room, courtyard, latrine and bathroom. The purpose for which the accommodation was taken on rent has been shown for establishing printing press. However, in the writ petition in para 5 it has been stated that said house was let out on rent to one Ram Pal Singh Yadav and the house is still in his tenancy. There is no mention that any portion was let out. However, in the writ petition in para 5 it has been stated that said house was let out on rent to one Ram Pal Singh Yadav and the house is still in his tenancy. There is no mention that any portion was let out. In her representation, Annexure II to the writ petition, also in paragraphs 2 and 3 petitioner stated that entire house was let out to alleged Ram Pal Singh Yadav for Rs. 800. 00 and it was in his possession. There is no mention that any portion was given on rent. It was also stated that Ram Pal Singh Yadav was also arrested a few days before by the police in connection with some criminal case. On the basis of such material it is difficult for this Court. to come to any definite conclusion on which basis finding may be recorded that the possession for the house was not with the petitioner at the relevant time. Identity of alleged Ram Pal Singh Yadav and his statement shall be necessary for coming to positive conclusion which can be done only by the criminal Court and not in the present proceedings. In our opinion, the petitioner cannot be given any benefit on the basis of the alleged rent note. ( 14 ) THE second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no material on record on which basis the detaining authority could satisfy himself that petitioner shall again indulge in similar activities if released on bail and the impugned order cannot be sustained in absence of such material. Learned counsel has placed reliance on several authorities mentioned above. We have carefully examine, the cases. Most of the cases relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been considered and discussed in the case of Anand Prakash ( AIR 1990 SC 516 ) (supra ). In our opinion, the cases relied on are clearly distinguishable on facts. In the case of Anand Prakash (supra) the recovery of the stolen electricity wire in the shape of melted copper was made after about two months. Involvement of detenu, Laxmi Chandra Gupta in that case was totally based on the statement of co-accused, Munshi Sharma. Honble Court examined the statement of Munsif Sharma and found that he did not say that he purchased the stolen wire from the detenu or on the instruction of the detenu. Involvement of detenu, Laxmi Chandra Gupta in that case was totally based on the statement of co-accused, Munshi Sharma. Honble Court examined the statement of Munsif Sharma and found that he did not say that he purchased the stolen wire from the detenu or on the instruction of the detenu. In fact he did not even say that he is the servant or agent of the detenu. He had merely stated that 20 kilograms of melted wire recovered from him was purchased by him from Santosh and his brother, Jagdish and that he had melted and sold the same to the detenu. The Court further found that after the wire is converted into melted form it could not be distinguished from any other melted wire of legal origin. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances Honble Court took the view that there was no credible information or material on record to warrant inference that if released on bail the detenu would continue his illegal activities. The fact of the present case however are altogether different. In the present case on the basis of the statement of co-accused, Sayed Mohd. Nadeem the house of petitioner was searched and recovery of large number of equipments was made which are used for preparing fake currency notes and coins. The recovery is not denied rather it has been tried to be explained on the basis of the alleged rent note. It has also come that there is a racket and the preparation and circulation of fake currency note in the market is being done in the organised manner, which is posing serious threat to the economy of the country. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances narrated above, there was sufficient and credible material before the detaining authority to satisfy himself that petitioner may indulge herself in similar activity after her release on bail. Great secrecy is maintained by the person involved in such activities and they are apprehended by the police only after serious and prolonged efforts. In our opinion, there was sufficient and credible material for passing the impugned order against the petitioner. The cases relied on are distinguishable on facts. Great secrecy is maintained by the person involved in such activities and they are apprehended by the police only after serious and prolonged efforts. In our opinion, there was sufficient and credible material for passing the impugned order against the petitioner. The cases relied on are distinguishable on facts. However, while going through the various counter-affidavits filed by the State Government and Union of India we have found that there was unexplained delay in deciding the representation of the petitioner by the State Government as well as by the Central Government and petitioner is entitled for the relief so far as her continued detention is concerned. ( 15 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, (as stated in paragraph 12 of writ petition she submitted her representation on 9-7-1999 to the Superintendent, District Jail, Agra, Shri Komal Singh, Deputy Jailor, District Jail, Agra has filed counter-affidavit in which para 12 of the writ petition has not at all been dealt with. In para 6 of the counter- affidavit, however, it has been stated that representation was submitted to jail authorities on 12-7-1999. Para 6 is being reproduced below :-"6. That the petitioner has submitted his representation to the jail authorities on 12-7-1999 in three copies and on the same day the same was sent to District Magistrate, Agra through special messenger. " ( 16 ) THE District Magistrate, however, in his affidavit in para 7 has stated that he received the representation from jail authority on 13-7-1999 and thereafter it was found necessary to obtain police report before sending parawise comments to the State Government. After receiving the police report on 14-7-1999 it was placed before the deponent on 15-7-1999 and the same was sent to the State Government through special messenger on 18-7-1999. Para 7 is being reproduced below :-"7. That in reply to the contents of para 12 of the petition it is submitted that the representative submitted by the petitioner through the jail authorities was received in officer of the deponent on 13-7-1999 and thereafter it was found necessary to obtain police report before sending the parawise comment to the State Government. After receiving the police report on 14-7-1999 and it was placed before the deponent on 15-7-1999 and the same was sent to the State Government through special messenger on 18-7-1999. After receiving the police report on 14-7-1999 and it was placed before the deponent on 15-7-1999 and the same was sent to the State Government through special messenger on 18-7-1999. " ( 17 ) ON behalf of the State Government counter-affidavit has been filed by Shri R. S. Agarwal, Joint Secretary, Home and Confidential Department para 3 whereof is very relevant which is being reproduced below :-"3. That in reply to the averments made in paragraphs 12, 16 and 17 of the petition, it is stated that the petitioners representation dated 9-7-1999 along with parawise comments were forwarded by the District Magistrate, Agra vide his letter dated 18-7-1999 which were received by the State Government on 21-7-1999. The State Government vide its letter dated 21-7-1999 sent the representation and parawise comments to the Advisory Board. The concerned section of the State Government examined the representation and submitted a detailed note on 22-7-1999. The under-Secretary examined it on 22-7-1999 and the Joint Secretary examined it on 22-7-1999 and thereafter submitted it to the special Secretary, Home and Confidential Department who examined it on 22-7-1999 and submitted it to the higher authorities for final orders of the State Government. Finally, after due consideration, the said representation was rejected by the State Government on 23-7-1999. The rejection of the representation was communicated to the petitioner through district authorities by the State Government vide its radiogram dated 26-7-1999. Hence from the facts shown above it is clear that the representation of the petitioner has been decided expeditiously at every stage by the State Government. Averments to the contrary are denied. " ( 18 ) FROM the perusal of the aforesaid counter-affidavit it is clear that though the District Magistrate forwarded the representation through special messenger on 18-7-1999 it was received by the State Government on 21-7-1999. It is difficult to understand how the special messenger deputed for this purpose could take such a long time. Similarly the District Magistrate in para 7 of his affidavit has not explained why the representation could not be forwarded to the State Government before 18-7-1999 though according to him all information was received by him on 15-7-1999. From perusal of counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 it is clear that attempt has been made to explain the delay between 9-7-1999 to 21-7-1999 by making inconsistent statements. From perusal of counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 it is clear that attempt has been made to explain the delay between 9-7-1999 to 21-7-1999 by making inconsistent statements. In our opinion, the delay between 9-7-1999 to 21-7-1999 has not been explained by the respondents by any cogent and acceptable explanation and it rendered the continued detention of the petitioner illegal. There is long delay in deciding the representation of the petitioner by the Central Government also. The representation dated 9-7 -1999 was received by the Central Government through the District Magistrate on 21-7-1999 i. e. after 13 days though the distance between Agra and Delhi is very short and the time consumed could not normally be more than a day. The representation was placed before the under- Secretary after five days i. e. on 27-7-1999. This delay has also not been explained. The Joint Secretary desired to obtain confidential report from Intelligence Bureau. The Secretary agreed with the report and the report was received on 17-8-1999 i. . e after about more than three weeks. The representation was ultimately rejected on 20-8-1999. The total time consumed was 42 days. We do not find any explanation for the delay :- (I) In forwarding in the representation by the District Magistrate to the Central Government, which was received after 13 days; (II) In placing the representation before the Under-Secretary after five days; and (III) In obtaining the report from the Intelligence Bureau, which took more than three weeks. ( 19 ) TIME and again this Court as well as Honble Supreme Court have expressed opinion that authorities dealing with these matters, which involve curtailment of liberty of citizen must act swiftly and with promptitude. However, in the present case we have no hesitation in observing that authority acted with extreme casualness and without having any regard that the petitioner is being kept in jail and has been deprived of her liberty without trial. The unexplained delays stated above rendered the continued detention of the petitioner illegal for which we find support from the view expressed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1998) (8) JT SC 598 : ( AIR 1999 SC 684 ). ( 20 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed. ( 20 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed. As the continued detention of the petitioner has been found illegal, respondents are directed to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith if her detention is not required in any other case. Petition allowed. .