Judgment :- A.S.Venkatachalamoorthy, J. The learned counsel for the petitioner questions the validity of the detention order on the ground that there was unexplained and inordinate delay on the part of the authorities in disposing of the representation. In particular, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that representation was given on 10.8.2001, received by the detaining authority on 13.8.2001 and remarks were called on 14.8.2001. But, however, the remarks were received on 5.9.2001 only after 21 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission places reliance on the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in Ahamed Nassar v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, JT 1999 (8) SC 252 as well as Rukmani v. District Collector and District Magistrate, Karur District and another, 1999 (1) LW (Crl.) 195 2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, inter alia would contend that the representation was sent to the sponsoring authority who examined the same and sent his remarks to the detaining authority. The detaining authority in turn forwarded the same to the Government. In these circumstances, according to the Prosecutor the time taken cannot be said to be long or unreasonable. 3. The admitted facts are that on 14.8.2001 the remarks were called for from the sponsoring authority and the same was received only on 5.9.2001. There was a time gap of 21 days. Certainly, it cannot be said that the authorities lost no time at any stage in disposing of the representation and they have acted reasonably and expeditiously more so when both these authorities are functioning within the city limits of Trichirapalli. 4. In this view of the matter, the impugned order of detention dated 4.8.2001 passed by the first respondent is hereby set aside. This H.C.P.No.1178 of 2001 is allowed. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty, if not required in connection with some other cases.