Judgment :- P.K.Misra, J. Heard Mr.T.R.Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.K.Subramanian, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents. 2. The order of preventive detention passed under Act 14 of 1982 detaining the petitioner as 'GOONDA' is being challenged. The main contention of the petitioner is to the effect that though a subsequent representation was made on 26.5.2003 taking additional grounds for release, disposal of such representation was delayed for a considerable period without any justification. 3. From the materials available on record, it is apparent that such representation was dated 26.5.2003, remarks were called for on 29.5.2003 and the remarks were received on 9.6.2003. However, the file containing the relevant papers was thereafter submitted before the Under Secretary only on 26.9.2003, that is to say, after a delay of about 3-1/2 months. No justification has been shown for such long delay in submitting the file. 4. The learned Government Advocate has submitted that this representation was the 3rd representation and there was no necessity to deal with such representation speedily and mere delay in disposal of such subsequent representation does not have the effect vitiating the order of detention. In support of such contention, the learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon an unreported decision of this Court in H.C.P.No.1824 of 1999 disposed of on 19.6.2000. 5. In K.ARUNA KUMARI v. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. ( AIR 1988 S.C. 227 ) while considering the question of considering the subsequent representation it was observed as follows:- "So far as the second representation filed by Madhava Rao's cousin Lakshmana Rao is concerned, it has, in fact, been disposed of by the Central Government but about 3 months later after its filing. It was argued that Section 14 of the Act clothes the authority with the power of revoking the detention order, and such a power carries with it the duty to exercise it whenever and as soon as changed or new factors call for the exercise of that power. Reliance was placed on the observations of this Court at page 786 in HARADHAN SAHA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL ( AIR 1974 S.C. 2154 at page 2159) and those in para 9 of the judgment in SAT PAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB ( AIR 1981 S.C. 2230 ). Reliance was placed on the observations of this Court at page 786 in HARADHAN SAHA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL ( AIR 1974 S.C. 2154 at page 2159) and those in para 9 of the judgment in SAT PAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB ( AIR 1981 S.C. 2230 ). It is true that such a power coupled with the duty exists but the duty to exercise it arises only where new and relevant facts and circumstances come to light. This was not so here, and as observed in para 13 of the judgment in STATE OF U.P. v. ZAVAD ZAMA KHAN ( AIR 1984 S.C. 1095 ), there is no right in favour of the detenu to get his successive representations based on the same grounds rejected earlier to be formally disposed of again. In any event no period of limitation is fixed for disposal of an application under Section 14 and as we have seen earlier the second representation filed by Lakshamana Rao indeed, was considered and rejected." 6. From the ratio of the above decision, it is apparent that if successive representations are made based on the same ground, the mere delay in disposal of such representation may not have the effect of vitiating the order of detention. However, in the present case, it appears that apart from delay in considering such representation, there was also callous indifference in dealing with the representation. Even though the representation had been received and remarks had been obtained, the matter was not placed before the Under Secretary for about a period of 3-1/2 months. Under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, the detention order may at any time revoked and modified by the State Government. Therefore, when such a representation was made, such representation was required to be considered by the appropriate authority. Even though some delay in disposal of such representation may not be a factor, but if it is found that there is gross and inordinate delay, as in the present case, amounting to callous indifference, such delay would be a justified ground to release the detenu. Such view receives support from the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in H.C.P.No.1838 of 2000 dated 20.2.2001. 7. We find that in the present case, there was callous indifference in dealing with the representation. Such view receives support from the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in H.C.P.No.1838 of 2000 dated 20.2.2001. 7. We find that in the present case, there was callous indifference in dealing with the representation. The factual scenario in the unreported decision of this Court in H.C.P.No.1824 of 1999 dated 19.6.2000 and the reported decision in AIR 1988 S.C. 227 being different, the ratio of such decision is inapplicable. On the other hand, the decision of this Court in H.C.P.No.1838 of 2000 is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention is quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.