M. C. JAIN, J. The petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 16-3-2005, passed by respondent No. 1, District Magistrate, Sonebhadra, under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 and his continued detention thereunder. 2. The grounds of detention are contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The foundation was an incident dated 28th December, 2004 of 10. 30 a. m. which took place near the office of P. W. D. , Robertsganj, District Sonebhadra. One Assistant Engineer Sukkhoo Chaudhary was short dead. The report of this incident was lodged the same day at 11. 05 a. m. by one Bageshwari who was Chaukidar in PWD office near which the incident had taken place. None was named as culprit in the F. I. R. However, during the course of investigation, the petitioner came to figure as one of the culprits who had hatched a criminal conspiracy for the said murder. The petitioner wanted to have an upper edge in grabbing contracts but the said Assistant Engineer was not succumbing to his pressure, lending helping hand to advance his evil design. It was said to be the reason of his murder. The said incident was committed in brilliant daylight which created an atmosphere of panic and terror in the entire area and public order was completely disturbed. 3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. 4. We have heard Shri Dileep Kumar assisted by Shri Rajiv Gupta for the petitioner, Shri Arvind Tripathi learned A. G. A. and the Counsel for Union of India. In this case, one of the contentions from the side of the petitioner was that he had made a representation on 10th April, 2005 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition ). Learned A. G. A. , on the other hand, countered that no such representation had been received by the Deputy Jailor. 5. By order dated 29-8-2005, another Bench of this Court permitted the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the State Government and Central Government within two weeks. The Counsel for the petitioner was permitted to file a copy of the representation before the Court by way of supplementary affidavit. In consequence of such order, the petitioner made representation dated 3-9-2005 and filed copy of the same with supplementary affidavit as Annexure SA-1. 6. The Counsel for the petitioner was permitted to file a copy of the representation before the Court by way of supplementary affidavit. In consequence of such order, the petitioner made representation dated 3-9-2005 and filed copy of the same with supplementary affidavit as Annexure SA-1. 6. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that there had been unexplained and inordinate delay in the decision of his representation dated 3-9-2005 by the Central Government. We have examined this aspect of the matter. It is noted from the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by Shri Ram Surat Yadav, Additional District Magistrate, Sonebhadra on behalf of the detaining authority that the petitioner submitted his representation through jail authorities on 3-9-2005, 4-9-2005 was Sunday and after collecting necessary information, parawise comments were prepared and the representation was sent to the State Government through special massenger. As per the supplementary affidavit sworn by Sri Babu Lal, Under Secretary, Government of U. P. , Lucknow, the representation dated 3-9-2005 submitted on behalf of the petitioner sent by the District Magistrate, Sonebhadra on 6-9-2005 with comments was received on 7-9-2005 and the same day was forwarded to the Special Secretary, Home (Confidential) who also examined it on the same day. Further, it was sent to the Secretary, Home (Confidential) who examined it on 9-9-2005 and then it was sent to the higher authorities for consideration. The representation was ultimately rejected by the State Government on 13-9-2005. Obviously, so far as the State Government was concerned, there was no delay in deciding the representation of the petitioner which came to be decided within a week from the date of receipt of the representation by it (State Government ). 7. However, there did occur unexplained delay in the decision of the representation of the detenu by the Central Government. The affidavit of Smt. Rita Dogra, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India is there. Paragraphs No. 5 and 6 of the same are relevant which are extracted below: " (5) The allegations made in para Nos. 2, 6 of the petition are denied being incorrect. The affidavit of Smt. Rita Dogra, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India is there. Paragraphs No. 5 and 6 of the same are relevant which are extracted below: " (5) The allegations made in para Nos. 2, 6 of the petition are denied being incorrect. It is stated that a representation dated 3-9-2005 from the detenu alongwith the parawise comments of the detaining authority was received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 16-9-2005 through District Magistrate Sonbhadra on behalf of State Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow vide letter No. 355 (2), dated 6-9-2005. " " (6) 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 20-9-2005. The Under Secretary carefully considered the case and put up the same before the OSD (Security), Ministry of Home Affairs on 20-9-2005. The O. S. D. carefully considered the same and with his comments put up the same before the Special Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 21-9-2005. The Special Secretary carefully considered the case and forwarded the same before the Union Home Secretary on 22-9-2005. The Union 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 23-9-2005. " 8. It is significant to point out that in supplementary affidavit filed by Shri Ram Surat, Additional District Magistrate, he avoided to disclose the mode by which the representation of the detenu dated 3-9-2005 was sent to the Central Government, though it was mentioned that it was sent to the State Government through special messenger. As per the affidavit of Shri Babu Ram, Under Secretary, Government of U. P. , Lucknow, referred to above, the representation sent by the District Magistrate Sonebhadra was received on 6-9-2005. But it was strange that it was received by the Central Government as late as on 16-9-2005, as is gleaned from paragraph 5 of the supplementary counter-affidavit of Smt. Rita Dogra. This affidavit is also silent as to by what mode it had been received there. It is incomprehensible that the representation sent by the District Magistrate on 6-9-2005 took ten days to reach the Central Government, it being lost in obscurity as to by what mode it was sent. This affidavit is also silent as to by what mode it had been received there. It is incomprehensible that the representation sent by the District Magistrate on 6-9-2005 took ten days to reach the Central Government, it being lost in obscurity as to by what mode it was sent. Duty is cast on the authority concerned to take every possible step for consideration of the representation of the detenu at the earliest without any loss of time. Faster and quicker means should be adopted. Had the same been done, the representation would have normally reached the Central Government on 8th September, 2005. Thus, judged in the right sense the interval from 9th to 16th September, 2005 goes unexplained. After 16-9-2005 also it was put up before the Under Secretary on 20-9-2005 and there is no explanation for the intervening three days, i. e. , 17-9-2005 to 19-9-2005. Indeed, the delay, though long, is acceptable if properly explained, but even the short delay, if not explained, would vitiate the detention order. 9. In the present case, there did occur unexplained delay in the decision of the representation by the Central Government and it vitiates the detention of the petitioner on the basis of detention order in question passed under the National Security Act. 10. No other point or argument has been pressed by the Counsel for the petitioner. 11. In view of the above discussion, we allow this writ petition. The continued detention of the petitioner under the detention order in question passed under the National Security Act is rendered illegal. Holding accordingly, we direct that the petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other connection. Petition allowed. .