Judgment :- (Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records of the first respondent pertaining to the detention order in Cr.M.P.No.2/NSA/2004 dated 27.9.2004 detaining N.Bose son of Nagalingam under the National Security Act, 1980 (Central Act 65/1980) and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the said detenu before this court who is detained at the Central Prison Madurai.) P.K.Misra, J. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The order of preventive detention in respect of one N.Bose under the National Security Act, 1980 has been challenged by the wife of the detenu. The order of detention is dated 27.9.2004. Such order of detention was passed by the Collector by recording satisfaction that the detenu was smuggling petroleum products and other essential commodities to the L.T.T.E of Sri Lanka and thereby he committed an act prejudicial to the relationship of India and Sri Lanka and prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 2. Several contentions have been raised challenging the order of detention. We concentrate only on two contentions as in our opinion on those contentions, the detenu is entitled to be released. 3. The first contention relates to the non-application of mind of the detaining authority with regard to a vital aspect viz., the discrepancy in the arrest memo. It is not disputed that in view of the Supreme Court decision in D.K. BASU v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL ( AIR 1997 SC 610 ), at the time of arrest, the arresting authority is required to furnish certain particulars as indicated in the said decision. In the present case, the arrest memo is supposed to have been prepared at the time of arrest. Such arrest memo is at page 85 and 87 of the booklet. It is not disputed that the arrest had taken place on 0430 hours on 13.9.2004. It is also not disputed that at the time, formal F.I.R was yet to be registered and as a matter of fact, the formal F.I.R was registered only at 0830 hours on 13.9.2004. Even though the F.I.R was yet to be registered, in the arrest memo which is supposed to have been simultaneously prepared, crime number has been indicated. There is nothing on record to indicate that the detaining authority has applied his mind to this vital discrepancy. 4. Even though the F.I.R was yet to be registered, in the arrest memo which is supposed to have been simultaneously prepared, crime number has been indicated. There is nothing on record to indicate that the detaining authority has applied his mind to this vital discrepancy. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is quite possible that the arresting officer might have contacted the police over mobile phone or wireless and given the crime number finding out the previous crime number. In the present case, there is no such explanation either in the booklet nor even in the affidavit which has been filed in court. In the absence of any such explanation, we are not inclined to accept the submission made by the counsel for the respondents. As a matter of fact, we find that similar views have been expressed in the order dated 9.2.2005 passed in H.C.P.No.108 of 2004 and several other decisions of Madras High Court holding that non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority to this vital aspect has effect of vitiating the order of detention. 5. There is yet another ground for quashing the order of detention. Under Article 22 (5) as well as provisions contained in section 8 of the National Security Act, the grounds of detention are required to be furnished to the detenu at the earliest to afford opportunity to the detenu to make representation against the order to the appropriate Government. Such provisions contained in Article 22(5) and section 8 of the National Security Act have been considered in innumerable decisions of Madras High Court and it has been laid down that opportunity to make representation at the earliest also implies that any such representation must be disposed of by the appropriate authority at the earliest without any unnecessary delay. It is not necessary to refer to any specific decision on this aspect as this position is now well settled. 6. In the present case, the representation had been made by the detenu to the State Government and also to the Central Government. So far as the State Government is concerned, such representation made on 30.11.2004 was disposed of by the State Government only on 16.12.2004. In the chart furnished by the State Government, it has been indicated about the action taken on some dates. So far as the State Government is concerned, such representation made on 30.11.2004 was disposed of by the State Government only on 16.12.2004. In the chart furnished by the State Government, it has been indicated about the action taken on some dates. However, nothing has been explained as to why remarks which were called from the detaining authority on 6.12.2004 were received only on 13.12.2004. Of course, during that period, there were holidays on 11th and 12th December 2004. However, it seems that nothing happened between 6.12.2004 and 10.12.004. Similarly, when representation was received on 30.11.2004, there was no necessity for the State Government to wait for the opinion of the Advisory Board and even before the Advisory Board had given its opinion, it was the duty of the State Government to consider and dispose of the representation. 7. We are of the opinion that there was unexplained delay in dealing with the representation so far as the State Government is concerned. 8. So far as the representation to the Central Government is concerned, the position seems to be worse. As apparent from the counter affidavit filed by the Central Government, the representation was received by the Central Government on 3.12.2004. It has been explained in the counter that a wireless message was sent to the State Government for English version of the representation on 7.12.2004 and subsequently reminders were sent on 13.12.2004 and on 20.12.2004, and the English version was received along with parawise comments on 21.12.1999. Thereafter, the above said representation was dealt with and disposed of on 23.12.2004. Therefore, even though the Central Government has disposed of the representation soon after receipt of parawise comments and English translation, it is apparent that the State Government has delayed the matter by furnishing the translated copy of the representation belatedly. As already indicated, after receipt of the representation on 3.12.2004, the Central Government, by wireless, sought for the English translation on 7.12.2004 and such English translation was furnished on 21.12.2004 and even though the Central Government may not by directly responsible for such delay, since the order of detention had been passed by the Officer of the State Government and such order has been subsequently translated by the State Government, it was the bounden duty of the State Government to furnish the translated version of the representation as expeditiously as possible without any unexplained delay. 9. 9. The learned counsel representing the State Government sought to explain the delay by submitting that even the Central Government had several translators and the Central Government could have got it translated. Whether the Central Government could have got translated or the State Government should have sent the translated copy, the fact remains that there was undue and unnecessary delay in dealing with the representation. 10. Since the order of preventive detention has effect of depriving a citizen's liberty, it is well settled that the matter has to be dealt with by all the concerned with utmost dispatch and unnecessary delay and the delay in disposing the representation has the effect of vitiating the order of detention. 11. For the above reasons, we are inclined to quash the order of detention. It is unnecessary to deal with other contentions raised by the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.