Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. At the thresh-hold, learned Government Advocate prayed for further time to file counter. However, in view of the specific order dated 9.9.2004, where the case was adjourned to 15.9.2004 for filing counter and wherein it had been made clear that no further time would be granted, we are not inclined to adjourn the case any further. 3. The petitioner along with three other persons involved in the same ground case were detained under order of preventive detention. In respect of another co-accused, who was similarly detained on the basis of the very same ground case, H.C.P.No.625 of 2004 was filed and such petition has been allowed by order dated 26.07.2004 by a Division Bench of this Court, on the ground that there was no explanation for the delay in disposal of the representation. The relevant portion of the said order is as follows: "Even at the foremost, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was inordinate delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu. Particulars furnished by the respondents show that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 28.4.2004 and thereafter the same was forwarded to the Collectorate for necessary remarks. It further shows that though remarks were called for from the Sponsoring authority on 3.5.2004 and received as early as on 5.5.2004, the report was sent to the Government only on 13.5.2004. There is no explanation by the Officer concerned for taking eight days time for sending the report to the Government. In the absence of any explanation by the Officer concerned, we hold that the unexplained delay in considering his representation has caused prejudice to the detenu. On this ground, the order of detention is vitiated." 4. From the materials available on record in the present case, we also find, there is similar delay on the part of the respondent in dealing with the representation of the detenu. From the materials, it is apparent that the remarks were received from the Sponsoring Authority on 5.5.2004 and yet the report was sent only on 13.5.2004 after a gap of eight days. In the absence of any explanation, in our opinion, such delay has vitiated the detention of the present detenu. 5. From the materials, it is apparent that the remarks were received from the Sponsoring Authority on 5.5.2004 and yet the report was sent only on 13.5.2004 after a gap of eight days. In the absence of any explanation, in our opinion, such delay has vitiated the detention of the present detenu. 5. The Habeas Corpus Petition is accordingly allowed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from custody unless he is required in connection with any other case or cause.