K.Narayana Kurup, J.: The order of detention clamped on the petitioner’s father by the first respondent in proceedings in G.O.No.SR.I/1026-4/2000, dated 24.3.2000 in exercise of powers under Sec.3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974) for importing cell phones (worth Rs.20,60,000 according to the Revenue Department) is under challenge on the ground that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Union of India in disposing of the representation preferred by the detenu. 2. Having heard learned counsel on both sides at length and having perused the counter affidavit and other pleadings, we are of the view that the contention raised is well founded. It is not in dispute that the detenu submitted a representation to the Union of India on 29.9.2000, which was received at New Delhi on 6.10.2000 and on the same day, the Union of India called for comments from the sponsoring authority. The comments were received by the Union of India on 10.10.2000. It was diarized and submitted to the Deputy Secretary and Joint Secretary on 12.10.2000. Additional information was called for by the Joint Secretary on 13.10.2000, which was received on 19.10.2000. On 20.10.2000, the Deputy Secretary submitted the file to the Joint Secretary, and on the same day itself, the Joint Secretary placed the file before the Special Secretary. However, at the fag end, Special Secretary disposed of the representation only on 27.10.2000 with a delay of 7 days, and the detenu was informed about the rejection of the representation dated 29.9.2000, vide memo dated 30.10.2000. Evidently, in our considered opinion, there is an inordinate delay on the part of the Special Secretary in dealing with the representation preferred by the detenu. The explanation furnished is that the Special Secretary had to attend other important and sensitive matters pertaining to the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, for which also, time had to be allotted and he took some time to carefully consider various points raised in the representation by the detenu and scrutinised the relevant materials for this purpose. Besides, it is submitted that 21st, 22nd and 26th October, 2000 were closed holidays on account of Saturday and Sunday, and Diwali respectively, and Special Secretary was also on tour on 28th and 29th October, 2000 being closed holidays on account of Saturday and Sunday. Besides, it is submitted that 21st, 22nd and 26th October, 2000 were closed holidays on account of Saturday and Sunday, and Diwali respectively, and Special Secretary was also on tour on 28th and 29th October, 2000 being closed holidays on account of Saturday and Sunday. The aforesaid explanation for the delay that has occurred in disposing of the representation is not at all convincing. Admittedly, the files were placed before Special Secretary by Joint Secretary on 20.10.2000 on which date, Special Secretary was very much present in New Delhi on 20.10.2000. Even though he was on tour on 20.10.2000, and even though 21st and 22nd October, 2000 were closed holidays, 23rd, 24th and 25th October, 2000 were working days and on which dates, Special Secretary was very much present in the office. Merely stating that the Special Secretary had to attend to other important and sensitive mattes pertaining to Government business, for which time had to be allotted, is not a sufficient ground to postpone the consideration of the representation preferred by the detenu, which affects valuable right of personal liberty of the detenu as enshrined in the Constitution. In our considered opinion, the reason stated in the counter affidavit is not all a justifiable explanation, when the liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Art.21 of the Constitution of India is involved. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the continued incarceration of the detenu is without any authority and is vitiated. The view we are taking is fortified by no less than the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1999 S.C.C. (Crl.) 93. Of course, learned Additional Central Government standing Counsel brought to our notice various decisions of the Apex Court. Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are afraid that those decisions will not be of any assistance, as they are not applicable to the facts of the case. 3. In the result, we allow this habeas corpus petition, quash the order of detention impugned herein and direct that the detenu be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.