Judgment : Per P. K. MISRA, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The order of detention on the allegation that the detenu is a ‘Goonda‘ is in question. 3. Such detention order was passed, on 21.11.2006. Even though several contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are concentrating on the question relating to delay in consideration, of the representation and communicating the result thereof. 4. From the materials on record it appears that the representation dated 30.11.2006 was received on 4.12.2006 and the remarks were received by the State Government on 11.12.2006 and thereafter, the Minister rejected such representation on 15.12.2006. However, the rejection letter was prepared only on 20.12.2006 and sent to the detenu on 20.12.2006 and was received by the detenu on 22.12.2006. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Harish Pahwa v. State of U. P. AIR 1981 SC 1126 : (1981) 2 SCC 710 , wherein it was observed that- “We would emphasise that it is the duty of the State to proceed to determine representations of the character above mentioned with the utmost expedition, which means that the matter must be taken up for consideration, as soon as such a representation is received and dealt with continuously (unless it is absolutely necessary to wait for some assistance in connection with it) until a final decision is taken and communicated to the detenu. This not having been done in the present case we have no option but to declare the detention unconstitutional.” (emphasisis added). The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that not only there is a duty to consider the representation without undue delay but there is also a concomitant duty to communicate the result of such representation without any unnecessary delay. The learned counsel has emphasised upon the fact after the Minister rejected the representation on 15.12.2006, the rejection letter could have been prepared soon thereafter without any delay. In the present case such letter was prepared only on 20.12.2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon several other orders of this Court wherein such unexplained delay in preparing the rejection letter has been found to be a ground sufficient to quash the order of detention. In the present case such letter was prepared only on 20.12.2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon several other orders of this Court wherein such unexplained delay in preparing the rejection letter has been found to be a ground sufficient to quash the order of detention. In the present case, it is no doubt true that 16 and 17.12.2006 were holidays, but the rejection letter could have been prepared immediately thereafter either on 18 or 19.12.2006 and no explanation has been furnished as to why he took 3 days even after the holidays for preparation of rejection letter. 6. Following the ratio of the Supreme Court decision to well as several other unreported orders of this Court in H.C.P. No. 1059 of 2006 dated 19.1.2007 and H.C.P. No. 1220 of 2006 dated 13.2.2007, we quash the order of detention. 7. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. Impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.