MBK, J.:- This writ petition has been filed challenging the legality of the detention of the petitioner under National Security Act, hereinafter referred to as the NSA. 2. Heard Mr.Kh.Mani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.Jallaluddin, learned Addl.GA for the State Respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. N.Ibotombi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3, Union of India. We have also perused the relevant files being No. CRIL/2/NSA/DM-BPR/2006 and No.17 (1) 988/2006-H produced from the side of the State respondents. 3. The following facts are ascertained. The order being No. CRIL/2/NSA/DM-BPR/2006/968 was issued by the District Magistrate, Bishnupur, Manipur on 28.1.2006 for detention of Shri Wareppam Brojen Singh @ Ravi (34 years) S/o W. Ibopishak Singh of Laimapokpam Khunpham, PS Nambol, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, under NSA purportedly with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. The allegations against the petitioner were that he was a member of outlawed organization, namely, Peoples Liberation Army (PLA in short) and that having regards to his past activities, it was considered that it would not be possible to prevent him from acting prejudicial to the security of the state and maintenance of the public order by application of ordinary law, he was required to be detained under NSA. The detention order was served to the petitioner on 29.1.2006 and it was approved and confirmed on 7.2.06 and 8.3.2006 respectively by the State Government. 4. One of the grounds submitted by the petitioner's counsel is that the petitioner's representation dated 16.2.2006 submitted through the Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Imphal was not disposed of expeditiously by the Central Government. 5. In this connection, Para 6 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents No.3 is as follows:- “6. That there is no legal obligation on respondent No.3 to call for representation from the petitioner. In this ca se, the representation dated 16.2.2006 made by the petitioner was received by the Central Government in North Block on 24.3.2006 and in the concerned section of Ministry of Home Affairs in Lok Nayak Bhavan on 28.3.2006. It is further stated that along with the representation dated 16.2.06, the State Government had indicated that comments of the State Government will follow. However, parawise comments on the representation were not received from the State Government. It is further stated that along with the representation dated 16.2.06, the State Government had indicated that comments of the State Government will follow. However, parawise comments on the representation were not received from the State Government. Therefore, the Central Government vide its Wireless message dated 29.3.2006 and subsequent reminders dated 7.4.2006, 12.4.06, 17.4.2006, 20.4.06 and D.O. of even No. dated 25.4.2006 , requested the State Government to send the parawise comments on the representation. The Government of Manipur furnished the parawise comments which were received by the Central Government and in the concerned section of the Ministry of Home Affairs on 27.4.2006. This representation dated 16.02.2006 along with comments of State Government examined and was immediately processed for consideration and the case of the detenu was put up before the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 28.4.2006. The Under Secretary carefully considered the case and put up the same before the OSD (Security), Ministry of Home Affairs on 28.4.2006. The OSD (Security) carefully considered the same and with his comments put up the same before the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 28.4.2006. The Joint Secretary considered the case and forwarded the same before the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 28.4.2006. The Additional Secretary carefully considered the case and forwarded the same before the Union Home Secretary, on 01.5.2006. 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 02.5.2006. It was duly considered by the competent authority in the Central Government under Section 14 of NSA and rejection order passed on 02.5.2006. The decision of the Central Government was communicated to the detenu through the Home Secretary, Manipur , Imphal and Superintendent , Central Jail, Imphal, vide crash wireless message No.II/15023/13/2006-National Security Act dated 03.5.2006. A true copy thereof is filed as Annexure-C.A.I. It is submitted that there was no delay on the part of the respondent No.3 in taking decision on the representation of the petitioner and communicating the same through the Govt. of Manipur. It is further submitted that no time limit is set out in NSA on deciding representation under Section 14 of the Act. 6. of Manipur. It is further submitted that no time limit is set out in NSA on deciding representation under Section 14 of the Act. 6. The respondent No.3 has shown that there was no delay on its part in taking decision on the representation of the petitioner and communicating the same to him through the Government of Manipur. According to the respondent no.3, when the said representation was received by the concerned section of Ministry of Home Affairs in Lok Nayak Bhavan on 28.3.2006, though the State Government had indicated that comments of the State Government would follow, no para-wise comments of the State Government was received. The State Government was requested through wireless messages dated 29.3.06 and subsequent reminders dated 7.4.2006, 12.4.06, 17.4.06, 20.4.06 and DO letter dated 25.4.06 for sending Para-wise comments on the representation. The Central Government received the para-wise comments only on 27.4.06. Thereafter, the representation and comments were processed through official channels and the said representation was considered and rejected by the Union Home Secretary, who was having power to deal with the matter, on 2.5.06. On the basis of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find sufficient basis for concluding that there was inordinate delay on the part of the Central Government in disposing of the representation of the petitioner. 7. However, no reason/explanation is given from the side of the State Government as to why it had not sent the Para-wise comments along with the said representation to the Central Government when invariably the later sought for such comments in all earlier cases. No reason is also given as to why the State Government delayed in furnishing the required Para-wise comments despite the request made by the Central Government in this regard by sending wireless messages on 29.3.06, 7.4.2006, 12.4.06, 17.4.06, 20.4.06 and DO letter dated 25.4.06. As per records produced on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, Special Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur vide letter dated 20th Feb.,2006 sought for Para-wise comments from the District Magistrate, Bishnupur in respect of the representation of the petitioner for onwards submission to the Ministry of Home Affairs , New Delhi. It is ascertained that Special Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur sought for Para-wise comments from the District Magistrate, Bishnupur in respect of the representation addressed to the Central Government even before getting messages from the Central Government. It is ascertained that Special Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur sought for Para-wise comments from the District Magistrate, Bishnupur in respect of the representation addressed to the Central Government even before getting messages from the Central Government. No explanation is given as to why the Para-wise comments required to be submitted was not sent to the Central Government expeditiously. 8. The absence of any explanation about the above said matter shows 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 report of a detenu, the Constitutional safeguards will be rendered nugatory and would be diluted considerably. It is implicit in the language of the Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India that the authority to whom the representation is made should properly consider the same as expeditiously as possible. There are many cases where detention orders have been set aside due to delay in consideration of the representation. The words “ as soon as may be” reflects the concern of the framers of the Constitution that representation should be expeditiously be 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 representation, the reason for 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. 9. In the light of the decisions of this court in Prabin Daimary and ors. vs. State of Assam and ors., 1999 (2) GLT 2004 and Prituo Solo vs. Union of India & ors., 1997(2) GLT 409 as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in Islam Ahmed Zahir Ahmed Shaik vs. Union of India, 1989 (3) SCC 277 , we have no hesitation in holding that the delay in disposal of a representation made to the Central Government , arising out of an 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 request made by the Special Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur, have resulted in rendering the continued detention of the petitioner illegal and constitutionally not permissible. 10. of Manipur, have resulted in rendering the continued detention of the petitioner illegal and constitutionally not permissible. 10. In view of the above findings, we do not think it necessary to consider other points submitted by the petitioner's counsel. 11. 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, namely, Warepam Brojen Singh @ Ravi, is to be released at his liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in connection with other cases. 12. With the above said direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.