JUDGMENT : Pradipta Ray, J. - The writ petitioner has been detained under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by an order dated July 31, 2000. He has filed the writ petition challenging the said order of detention and his continued detention on several grounds, 2. It is how a settled position of law that any unreasonable and unexplained delay in considering the representation of a detenu renders the order of detention and/or continuance in deletion illegal. The decisions in this regard are numerous and it is needless to refer to those decisions. 3. In the present case undisputedly the detenu submitted representation to the State Government being the appropriate Government and the Central Government through the Superintendent of Jails on October 20, 2000. It appears from the affidavit affirmed by Sri Sushil Kumar, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India that the petitioner's representation dated October 20, 2000 in Oriya language was sent to the Central Government by the State Government on December 2, 2000. Although the said representation in Oriya language was with the State Government for well over one month, the State Government mechanically sent the said representation to the Central' Government without furnishing any English translation thereof. It further appears that on receipt of the representation through the State Government, the Central Government requested the State Government by a crash-ware-less message dated December 26,2000 for sending an English version of the representation. Central Government also sent reminders on January 8, and January 16, 2001. Ultimately by a letter dated January 16, 2001 the State Government sent the English translation of the petitioner's representation to the Central Government which received it on January 24, 2001. No explanation far less any acceptable explanation has been given by the State Government regarding the inordinate delay in forwarding the petitioner's representation to the Central Government. 4. The representation of the detenu dated October 20, 2000 was received by the District Magistrate on October 24, 2000. It appears from the said representation that the petitioner prayed for Oriya translation of the judgment in G. R. Case No. 1414 of 1998 making it quite clear that on receipt of the said copy he may submit further representation. In his representation the petitioner prayed for revocation of the order of detention on the ground mentioned therein. It appears from the said representation that the petitioner prayed for Oriya translation of the judgment in G. R. Case No. 1414 of 1998 making it quite clear that on receipt of the said copy he may submit further representation. In his representation the petitioner prayed for revocation of the order of detention on the ground mentioned therein. On November 25, 2000 an Oriya translation of the aforesaid judgment in G. R. Case was made available to the detenu. The detaining authority i. e. the District Magistrate, Kendrapara by letter dated December 1, 2000 submitted the petitioner's representation along with parawise comments to the State Government for consideration. The said representation was ultimately rejected by the State Government on December 5, 2000. There is also unreasonable delay in forwarding the representation to the State Government. An explanation has been given that the detaining authority was under the impression that the petitioner's representation dated October 20, 2000 was merely a request to supply Oriya translation of the judgment in G. R. Case No. 1414 of 1998 and his representation was to be considered after supplying an Oriya translation of the said judgment to the petitioner and giving him an opportunity to submit further representation. The said explanation is also not acceptable inasmuch as the representation appears to be a complete representation and the request for Oriya translation was an additional request. 5. Undisputedly there was about 46 days' delay in consideration of the representation by the State Government and about 101 days delay in consideration by the Central Government, it is unfortunate that inspite of so many decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and this High Court the detaining authority acted in such negligent and recalcitrant manner. 6. The aforesaid undisputed facts together with inexcusable delay which is devoid of any explanation, are sufficient to hold that the continued detention of the petitioner is violative of the guarantee contained in Article 22(5) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, we hold that the petitioner is not liable to be kept detained under the impugned order of detention and direct the State Government to release the petitioner, if he is not liable to be kept detained under any other order and/or in connection with any other case. The writ petition is allowed. A.S. Naidu, J. I agree. 8. Writ petition allowed. Final Result : Allowed