( 1 ) THESE habeas corpus petitions challenge the impugned detention order dated 15-11-2000 Annexure 1 to the writ petitions passed under the National Security Act. ( 2 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Advocate. Several arguments have been advanced before us. Firstly it is alleged that there was delay by the Central Government in deciding the petitioners representation. In paragraph in deciding the petitioners representation. In paragraph 26 of the petition it is alleged that on 22-11-2000 the petitioner gave several copies of this representation to the jail authorities requesting them to forward them to the State and Central Government. In paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit of the District Magistrate it is stated that the petitioners submitted their representations to the jail authorities on 27-11-2000 but it was not addressed to the Central Government nor any request was made to send it to the Central Government. The District Magistrate received the representation on 28-11-2000 and sent it to Superintendent of Police, Sant Kabir Nagar who sent it to the S. O. Bakhira. The Superintendent of Police sent his comments on the representation to the District Magistrate on 1-12-2000 and the Distict Magistrate sent the same to the State Government on 3-12-2000 through special messenger. Copy of the representation was also sent to the Central Government. The State Government rejected the representation of the petitioner and sent a message on 13-12-2000 to this effect. In paragraph 18 of the said counter affidavit it is stated that the detention order was approved by the State Government on 23-11-2000. ( 3 ) IN paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit of Sri S. K. Pandey, Deputy Jailor, district jail, Basti, it is stated that the Central Government rejected the representation vide message dated 3-1-2001 which was received in jail on 4-1-2001. ( 4 ) IN our opinion, even assuming that the representation was not addressed to the Central Government, admittedly the same was sent to the Central Government by the District Magistrate on 3-12-2000 and the Central Government should have decided the same expeditiously. But it appears that the Central Government decided it only on 3-1-20001. Thus there was unreasonable delay by the Central Government in deciding the representation. ( 5 ) NO counter affidavit has been filed by the Central Government although three weeks time was granted by the Court on 19-1-2001. But it appears that the Central Government decided it only on 3-1-20001. Thus there was unreasonable delay by the Central Government in deciding the representation. ( 5 ) NO counter affidavit has been filed by the Central Government although three weeks time was granted by the Court on 19-1-2001. ( 6 ) IN our opinion the delay in deciding the representation by the Central Government is itself sufficient to allow the writ petition. However, we may consider other grounds also advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was casual exercise of power by the detaining authority and in this connection he has relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Tunnu v. Supdt. Dist. Jail Balla, (2000) 40 All Cri C 729 : (2000 All LJ 1428) and the Division Bench decision in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 41994 of 1993, Alim v. Superintendent, District Jail, Bulandshahr decided on 11-1-1994 as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1985 SC 764 . He has submitted that the grounds of detention are a verbatim reproduction of the report of the sponsoring authority. ( 8 ) WE have carefully perused the grounds of detention copy of which is Annexure 2 to the writ petition as well as the proposal of the sponsoring authority which is Annexure 4. In Annexure 2 the words : (vernacular matter omitted) is a verbatim reproduction of the sponsoring authoritys report from paragraph 4 onwards of the said report. Hence this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also correct and on this ground also the impugned detention order deserves to be quashed. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel has further submitted that a copy of the bail application of the petitioner which was pending before the Court concerned was not placed before the detaining authority concerned as stated in paragraph 22 of the petition. This fact has not been denied by the respondent. Hence in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of U. P. v. Kamal Kishore Saini, 1988 SCC (Cri) 107 (2) and M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India, 1990 SCC (Cri) 258 this argument has also to succeed. This fact has not been denied by the respondent. Hence in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of U. P. v. Kamal Kishore Saini, 1988 SCC (Cri) 107 (2) and M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India, 1990 SCC (Cri) 258 this argument has also to succeed. ( 10 ) WE need not go into other arguments of the learned counsel as the writ petition succeeds on the above grounds. ( 11 ) THE petitions are allowed. The impugned detention orders dated 15-11-2000 are quashed. The petitioners shall be released forthwith unless they are required in some other criminal or preventive detention case. Petition allowed. .