M.Karpagavinayagam, J.: Cousin brother of the detenu challenging the Detention Order, branding the detenu as ‘Goonda’ by the order dated 5.5.2003, has filed this petition. 2. The main ground of attack to the order of detention urged by the counsel for the petitioner is delay in consideration of the representation. 3. The representation dated 15.5.2003 was received on 20.5.2003. On 21.5.2003, the remarks were called for. The Collectorate received the papers on 26.5.2003 and called for the remarks from the sponsoring authority on 26.5.2003. The remarks were received from the sponsoring authority on 27.5.2003 and the report was sent to the Government on the very same day. The Government received the remarks on 28.5.2003 and the file was submitted on 28.5.2003. Ultimately, the matter came to the table of the Minister, who in turn rejected the representation by the order dated 30.5.2003. 4. However, there is a lack of diligence on the part of the officials in preparing the rejection letter. As a matter of fact, the rejection letter was prepared on 4.6.2003 and it was served on the detenu only on 23.6.2003. Thus, there is delay between the period 30.5.2003 and 4.6.2003, and between 4.6.2003 and 23.6.2003. 5. As held by the Supreme Court in Harish Pahwa v. State of U.P. and others,1981 Crl.L.J. 750, the undue delay which has not been explained would be fatal to the detention order. As a mater of fact, it was observed by the Supreme Court that when there is no explanation at all as to why no action was taken in reference to the representation and when it is not clear what consideration was given by the Government to the representation, why the representation had to travel from table to table before reaching the Minister and when there is no explanation for the delay for serving the detention order, the detention order has to be held vitiated. The relevant observation of the Supreme Court is as follows: “...We may make it clear, as we have done on numerous earlier occasions, that this Court does not look with equanimity upon such delays when the liberty of a person is concerned. Calling comments from other departments, seeking the opinion of Secretary after Secretary and allowing the representation to live without being attended to is not the type of action which the State is expected to take in a matter of such vital import. Calling comments from other departments, seeking the opinion of Secretary after Secretary and allowing the representation to live without being attended to is not the type of action which the State is expected to take in a matter of such vital import. We would emphasize that it is the duty of the State to proceed to determine representations of the character above mentioned with the utmost expedition, which means that the matter must be taken up for consideration as soon as such a representation is received and dealt with continuously (unless it is absolutely necessary to wait for some assistance in connection with it) until a final decision is taken and communicated to the detenu....” The above observation would make it clear that delay in consideration would mean the period including the preparation of rejection letter and the date of service of the rejection letter on the detenu. 6. In this case, there is delay in two spells. The sponsoring authority sent the remarks on 27.5.2003 to the Collectorate and on the same day the report was sent to the Government. The Government received the report on 28.5.2003 and it travelled from table to table and ultimately, the Minister concerned rejected the representation on 30.5.2003. However, only on 4.6.2003, the Department concerned prepared the rejection letter. There is no explanation for the period between 30.5.2003 and 4.6.2003. Further, though the rejection letter was prepared on 4.6.2003, there is no reason to wait for a long time and serve the order on the detenu only on 23.6.2003. 7. Though the Additional Public Prosecutor would strenuously contend that mere delay would not vitiate the order of detention, we are not able to accept such a contention in the light of the non-explanation on the part of the respondents. Therefore, in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the detention order is liable to be set aside, as the same is vitiated. 8. In fine, the detention order is set aside and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.