M.B.K., J.:- In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is challenging the legality of his detention under the National Security Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in pursuance of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West on 15.7.2005 and its approval and confirmation by the State Government and Order No.17 (1)/915/2004-H dated 19.8.2005 respectively. 2. We have heard Mr. S. Lakhikanta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Jalalluddin, learned Addl.G.A. appearing on behalf of the respondents-1,2,3 and 5 and Mr. K. Kumar, learned Addl.C.G.S.C. appearing on behalf for the respondent No.4. 3. One of the grounds submitted by the petitioner's counsel is that the petitioner's representation to the Central Government submitted through the respondent No.5 on 30.7.2005 was not disposed of expeditiously. 4. In this connection, para 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 is as follows: “6. That there is no legal obligation on respondent No.4 to call for representation from the detenu. In this case the representation dated 30.7.05 made by the petitioner was received by the Central Government and in the concerned Section of Ministry of Home Affairs on 08.08.2005. It is further stated that along with the representation dated 30.07.2005, the parawise comments on the representation has not been received from the State Government. The State Government vide our Wireless Message dated 08.08.2005 and 16.08.2005 was requested to send the parawise comments on the representation. The Government of Manipur has furnished the parawise comments and this was received by the Central Government on 22.08.2005 and in the concerned Section of Ministry of Home Affairs on 23.08.2005. This representation was immediately processed for consideration and the case of the detenu was put up before the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 23.8.2005. The Under Secretary carefully considered the case and put up the same before the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 23.8.2005. The Deputy Secretary carefully considered the same and with his comments put up the same before the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 23.08.2005. The Joint Secretary considered the case and forwarded the same before Special Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 23.08.2005. The Special Secretary carefully considered the case and put up the same before the Union Home Secretary on 24.8.2005. The Joint Secretary considered the case and forwarded the same before Special Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 23.08.2005. The Special Secretary carefully considered the case and put up the same before the Union Home Secretary on 24.8.2005. The Union of Home Secretary (who has been delegated powers by the Union Home Minister to decide such cases) considered the case of the detenu and rejected the representation of the detenu on 24.08.2005. It was duly considered by the Competent Authority in the Central Government under section 14 of the NSA and rejection order passed on 24.08.2005. The decision of the Central Government was communicated to the detenu through the Home Secretary, Govt. of Manipur, Imphal and Addl. Superintendent Central Jail, Sajiwa, Manipur. A true copy of the wireless message No.II/15023/103/2005-NSA, dated 26.8.2005 is filed as Annexure C.A.I. It is submitted that the procedural delay on the part of the Respondent 4 in taking decision on the representation of the detenu and communicating the same through the Government of Manipur is due to non-receipt of parawise comment. It is further submitted that no time limit is set out in NSA on deciding representation under section 14 of the Act.” 5. The respondent No.4 has given its reasons for the delay in disposing of the representation of the petitioner dated 30.7.2005. According to the respondent No.4 when the said representation was received in the concerned Section of Ministry of Home Affairs on 08.08.2005, no parawise comment in respect of it was received from the State Government and as such the State Government was requested through Wireless Messages dated 08.08.2005 and 16.08.2005 to send the parawise comments. The parawise comment was received by the concerned Section of Ministry of Home Affairs on 23.08.2005. No reason is, however, given by the respondent No.4 as to why the parawise comments of the State Government to the said representation of the petitioner was required. It is to be noted that as per provisions of section 3(5) of the Act, when an order of detention is made or approved by the State Government under section 3 of the Act, the State Government shall within 7 days report the fact to the Central Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in the opinion of the State Government, have a bearing on the necessity for the order. In para No.4 of the counter affidavit, the respondent No.4 admits that a report as envisaged under section 3(5) of the Act was made by the State Government vide letter dated 28.7.2005. Apparently, when the said representation of the petitioner was received, the respondent No.4 had already received a report of the detention together with the grounds of detention and other relevant particulars and as such it is reasonable to ask as to why parawise comments of the State Government in respect of the said representation was required despite having all the relevant facts. No record to show as to why the said parawise comments of the State Government were required is produced. 6. No reason/explanation is also given from the side of the State Government as to why it did not send parawise comments along with the said representation to the Central Government when invariably the later sought for such comments in all earlier cases. No reason/explanation is also given as to why the State Government delayed in furnishing the required parawise comments despite requests made by the Central Government in this regard by sending Wireless Messages on 8.8.2005 and 16.8.2005. As per records produced by the learned Addl.G.A. Special Secretary (H), Govt. of Manipur vide letter No.17(1)/915/2005-H dated 2.8.05 sought for parawise comments from the District Magistrate, Imphal West in respect of the representation of the petitioner for onward submission to the Central Government, it is ascertained that Special Secretary(H), Govt. of Manipur sought for parawise comments from the District Magistrate, Imphal West in respect of the representation addressed to the Central Government even before getting the messages from the Central Government. No explanation is given as to why parawise comments required to be submitted was not sent to the Central Government expeditiously. 7. The absence of any explanation about the above said matter shows supine indifference, slackness or callous attitude on the part of the detaining authority in dealing with the said representation of the petitioner. It is well settled that if there is delay in considering the representation of a detenu, the Constitutional safeguard will be rendered nugatory and would be diluted considerably. It is implicit in the language of the Article 22(5) that the authority to whom the representation is made should properly consider the same as expeditiously as possible. It is well settled that if there is delay in considering the representation of a detenu, the Constitutional safeguard will be rendered nugatory and would be diluted considerably. It is implicit in the language of the Article 22(5) that the authority to whom the representation is made should properly consider the same as expeditiously as possible. There are many cases wherein detention orders have been set aside due to delay in consideration of the representation. The words, “as soon as may be” occurring in clause (5) of Article 22 reflects the concern of the framers of the Constitution that the representation should be expeditiously considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency without avoidable delay. It is also well settled that if there has been any delay in disposal of the representation, the reason for the delay must be indicated to the Court or else the unexplained delay in disposal of the representation would fatally affect the order of detention and in that situation continued detention would become bad. 8. In the light of the decisions of this Court in Prabin Daimary & Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Ors. (1999) 2 GLT 104, and Prituo Solo Vs. Union of India & Ors (1997)2 GLT 409 as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in Islam Ahmed Zahiri Ahmed Shaik Vs. Union of India 1989 (3) SCC 277 , we have no hesitation in holding that the delay in disposal of the representation made to the Central Government, arising out of the unexplained delay in submitting the information sought by the Central Government and failure on the part of the detaining authority to furnish the said information expeditiously despite requests made by the Special Secretary(H), Govt. of Manipur, have resulted in rendering the continued detention of the petitioner illegal and constitutionally not permissible. 9. In view of the above finding, we do not think it necessary to consider other points submitted by the petitioner's counsel. 10. For the reasons given above, we are of the opinion that the Constitutional mandate and right of the detenu under Article 22(5) has been violated and as such continued detention of the petitioner has become illegal. The petitioner is to be released at his liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in connection with other cases.