This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 8-11- 2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act (for short the Act ). 2. Counter and Rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and they are on record. 3. We have heard Sri Daya Shanker Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Arvind Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri J. Lal, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Union of India-respondent No. 4. 4. It appears from the grounds of detention, a copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition that when the Senior Sub-Inspector Sri Ved Prakash alongwith other police personnel reached near Medical Chauraha at about 8. 15 p. m. on 10th October, 2002, they found four persons carrying polythene packet in their hands in a suspicious manner on west south corner of the road. On seeing the police personnel, all these four persons including the petitioner started moving towards Civil Lines. However, the police party ultimately arrested them near the house of the Principal of the Government Inter College and on search forged stamp papers were recovered from their possession. They were accordingly brought to the Police Station and taken into custody and an FIR was lodged which was registered as Case Crime No. 253 of 2002 under Sections 255, 258, 259 and 260 IPC. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad vide his letter dated 6-11-2002 sent proposal for the detention of the petitioner under the provisions of National Security Act whereupon the District Magistrate, Allahabad passed the impugned order detaining the petitioner which was also approved by the State Government on 13- 11-2002 as required under sub-section 4 (3) of the Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was in fact arrested from his residence on 9th October, 2002 at 12. 00 in the night and a telegram to this effect was also sent by the mother of the detenu on 10-10-2002 at 12. 00 noon to the District Magistrate, Senior Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police (City), Allahabad but the same was not placed nor considered by the District Magistrate (detaining authority) while passing the impugned order of detention. 00 in the night and a telegram to this effect was also sent by the mother of the detenu on 10-10-2002 at 12. 00 noon to the District Magistrate, Senior Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police (City), Allahabad but the same was not placed nor considered by the District Magistrate (detaining authority) while passing the impugned order of detention. It is also argued that admittedly his representation against the order of the detention was placed at the desk of the Home Ministry on 26-11-2002 but no explanation has been given for the period from 26-11-2002 to 3- 12-2002 which vitiates the further detention of the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 - Union of India opposed the writ petition and pointed out that the representation of the petitioner has been disposed of with all promptness and the delay has duly been explained. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions on both sides. 8. In Para-6 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India (respondent No. 4) sworn by Sri Ramesh Kumar, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, it has been averred that the representation of the petitioner dated 21-11-2002 was received by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 25-11-2002 and in the concerned Desk of Ministry of Home Affairs on 26-11-2002. In para-7 of the counter-affidavit it has further been averred that the aforesaid representation was placed before the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 3rd December, 2002 and finally it was rejected by the Union Home Secretary on 9-12-2002, who has been delegated the powers by the Union Home Minister to decide such cases. In the counter-affidavit the period occurring from 26-11-2002 to 30-11- 2002 has not been explained although in para-8 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that 1st, 6th, 7th and 8th December, 2002 were holidays and if the four holidays are excluded, there is no delay in the disposal of the representation and it was decided within 10 days. Thus, no explanation has been given in respect of the period from 26-11-2002 to 30-11-2002. 9. Thus, no explanation has been given in respect of the period from 26-11-2002 to 30-11-2002. 9. It is settled legal position that any unexplained delay in the disposal of representation amounts to breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal. Reference may be made to a judgment of the Constitution Bench of Honble Supreme Court in the case of K. M. Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India, reported in 1991 (1) SCC 476 . The Honble Supreme Court again reiterated the similar view in the case of Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, reported in 1999 (1) SCC 417 : 1999 (1) JIC 524 (SC) and observed as under: "7. It is a constitutional obligation of the Government to consider the representation forwarded by the detenu without any delay. Though no period is prescribed by Article 22 of the Constitution for the decision to be taken on the representation, the words "as soon as may be" in clause (5) of Article 22 convey the message that the representation should be considered and disposed of at the earliest. But that does not mean that the authority is pre-empted from explaining any delay which would have occasioned in the disposal of the representation. The Court can certainly consider whether the delay was occasioned due to permissible reasons or unavoidable causes. " 10. In the same judgment their Lordships after considering the ratio laid down in the case of K. M. Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India, (supra) held as under: "8. The position, therefore, now is that if delay was caused on account of any indifference or lapse in considering the representation, such delay will adversely affect further detention of the prisoner. In other words, it is for the authority concerned to explain the delay, if any, in disposing of the representation. It is not enough to say that the delay was very short. Even longer delay can as well be explained. So the test is not the duration or range of delay, but how it is explained by the authority concerned. " 11. It is not enough to say that the delay was very short. Even longer delay can as well be explained. So the test is not the duration or range of delay, but how it is explained by the authority concerned. " 11. In the case in hand, no explanation for the period from 26- 11-2002 to 30-11-2002 has been given in the counter-affidavit of the Central Government sworn by Sri Ramesh Kumar, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, as to why the representation could not be dealt with from 26-11-2002 to 30-11-2002 which is fatal and vitiates the continued detention of the petitioner. 12. Therefore, in view of the exposition of law and also in the absence of any explanation for such unexplained delay, further detention of the petitioner has vitiated. 13. In the result this petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required in some other case. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .