This petition is directed against the order dated 8th May, 2003 passed by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur, detaining the petitioner under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act (in short the Act) on account of his involvement in Case Crime No. 254 of 2003 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 506 IPC and 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Khanpur, District Ghazipur. 2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and are on record. 3. We have heard Smt. Kamla Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Mahendra Pratap Singh, Additional Government Advocate for respondents No. 1, 2 and 5 and Shri D. S. Lal, Additional Standing Counsel for respondent No. 3. 4. Although several points have been raised in the writ petition but learned Counsel for the petitioner confined her submissions to the point of unexplained delay in disposal of the petitioners representation by the Central Government. It is contended that the representation of the petitioner was handed over to the Jail authorities on 29-5-2003 and was sent to the District Magistrate, Ghazipur on the same date. The District Magistrate, thereafter, invited comments from the Superintendent of Police which was also received in the office of the District Magistrate on 1-6-2003. The District Magistrate, thereafter, sent the representation of the petitioner alongwith comments, to the State Government on 2- 6-2003 through special messenger and to the Central Government through speed post which was received by the Central Government on 6-6-2003 but it was rejected on 19-6-2003 and no explanation has been furnished in the counter-affidavit of the Central Government in respect of 10th, 11th, 16th, 17th and 18th June, 2003. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and tried to explain the delay but could not point out any explanation for delay in the counter-affidavit of the Central Government for 10th, 11th, 16th, 17th and 18th June, 2003. We have considered the submissions made on both sides. 6. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and tried to explain the delay but could not point out any explanation for delay in the counter-affidavit of the Central Government for 10th, 11th, 16th, 17th and 18th June, 2003. We have considered the submissions made on both sides. 6. The Central Government in its counter-affidavit sworn by Shri P. K. Jain, Under Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, has stated that the representation of the detenue alongwith parawise comments of the Detaining Authority was received in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 6-6-2003 and in the concerned Desk of Ministry of Home Affairs on 9-6-2003 through the State Government of U. P. vide letter dated 4- 6-2003. Therefore, admittedly, the representation of the petitioner sent by the Detaining Authority was received in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 6-6-2003 and the representation forwarded by the State Government was also received in the Ministry of Home Affairs, on 9-1-2003. It further appears from the counter-affidavit that the representation was processed and considered by the Director, Ministry of Home Affairs on 9-6-2003 and alongwith his comments it was sent to the Joint Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs on the same date. However, the Joint Secretary forwarded the representation to the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on 12-6- 2003. No explanation has been given in the counter-affidavit as to what steps were being taken by the Joint Secretary on 10th and 11th June, 2003. It further appears from the averments made in the counter-affidavit that the Additional Secretary considered the representation and forwarded it to the Home Secretary on 13- 6-2003, who has been delegated with the powers to decide such representation by the Union Home Minister. The Union Home Secretary considered the representation and rejected the same on 19-6-2003. Again no explanation has been furnished in the counter-affidavit for 16th, 17th and 18th June, 2003. Though in para 7 of the counter-affidavit, explanation for 7th, 8th, 14th and 15th June, 2003 has been given but surprisingly it has not been stated as to what steps were taken on 10th, 11th, 16th, 17th and 18th June, 2003. 7. Again no explanation has been furnished in the counter-affidavit for 16th, 17th and 18th June, 2003. Though in para 7 of the counter-affidavit, explanation for 7th, 8th, 14th and 15th June, 2003 has been given but surprisingly it has not been stated as to what steps were taken on 10th, 11th, 16th, 17th and 18th June, 2003. 7. It is settled legal position that in the matter of detention, the representation of the detenue has to be disposed of with all promptness and unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation is fatal and vitiates the detention. 8. In the case of K. M. Abdulla Kunhi and B. L. Abdul Khader v. Union of India and others; State of Karnataka and others, JT 1991 (1) SC 216, a Constitution Bench of Honble apex Court while considering its earlier judgment in the matter of delay in disposing the representation of a detenu observed that there should not be supine indifference, blackness or callous attitude in considering the representation and any unexplained delay in that regard would be a breach of constitutional imperative, which would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal. 9. In the case in hand, the respondents having failed to give any explanation for 10th, 11th, 16th, 17th and 18th, June 2003, in our view, the continued detention of the petitioner is vitiated. Besides that it appears that the representation was rejected on 19-6-2003 but it is said to be communicated by the Central Government through wireless only on 23rd June, 2003, although in the counter-affidavit of the Jail authorities it has been stated that message of rejection of the representation of the petitioner was received on 30-6-2003. Therefore, we are of the view that unexplained delay in disposal of the representation is fatal and has vitiated the further detention of the petitioner. 10. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Respondents are directed to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith provided he is not required to be detained in connection with some other case. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .