JUDGMENT By the Court.—This Habeas Corpus petition is directed against the order of preventive detention dated 28.2.2006 passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad in exercise of the powers under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). The grounds of detention have been enclosed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner apart from praying for quashing of the above detention order has prayed that he may be set at liberty forthwith as his continued detention is illegal. The petitioner was arrested by Police on 3.12.2005 in connection with the case crime No. 358 of 2005 under Section 302, IPC on account of an incident dated 24.12.2005 in which the petitioner alongwith his brother Manoj Kumar Singh, Sarvesh Kumar Singh and Driver Chandan Pandey went to the house of one Dilip Kumar Agrahari and shot dead Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, a candidate for the post of Secretary of the Student Union of the Allahabad University who was present in the said house from before. 2. The grounds of detention in unequivocal terms states that on account of above incident of shooting the student Union leader Kamlesh Kumar Yadav by putting a country made pistol on his right temple and the subsequent act of indiscriminate firing in a densely populated residential area created terror and panic disturbing the public order. The residents of the locality in terror immediately closed down their shops and shut themselves inside their houses. The Police and Rapid Action Force had to be deployed in good number. Extra force had to called for from the adjoining districts to restore public order and normalcy in the town. The grounds of detention further records that the petitioner had applied for bail before the District Judge but the bail application was rejected on 10.2.2006.The petitioner moved another bail application on 14.2.2006 before the Sessions Judge. Accordingly, he is making serious efforts for his release on bail and there is all possibility of the petitioner being granted bail. The petitioner on being released is likely to indulge in same kind of activity and to perform similar acts which would disturb the public order. Therefore, under the circumstances it has become necessary to put the petitioner in preventive detention. 3. The petitioner on being released is likely to indulge in same kind of activity and to perform similar acts which would disturb the public order. Therefore, under the circumstances it has become necessary to put the petitioner in preventive detention. 3. The necessary counter and rejoinder affidavits between the parties have been exchanged and the Counsel for the respective parties have no objection for the final disposal of the petition. 4. We have heard Sri Daya Shankar Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arvind Tripathi, Addl. Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and Sri Tej Prakash for the Union of India respondent No. 4. Several arguments assailing the preventive detention of the petitioner have been advanced by Sri Daya Shankar Misra. The first and the foremost submission on his behalf is that there is undue delay on the part of the Central Government in considering and deciding the petitioner’s representation and the part of the delay in dealing with the representation has not at all been explained and therefore, the continued detention of the petitioner is illegal. 5. According to the petitioner he had submitted a representation dated 17.3.2006 addressed to the Central Government, State Government and the Advisory Board with six copies to the Jail Superintendent against his above detention. The representation was forwarded by the District Magistrate to the State Government as well as to the Central Government on 22.3.2006. Admittedly the said representation was received by the Central Government at the concerned desk on 4.4.2006 and was finally rejected on 19.4.2006. Thus there is undue delay in dealing with the above representation of the petitioner and the delay between 17.3.2006 till its receipt by the Central Government on 4.4.2006 and from that day till its disposal on 19.4.2006 has not been explained. 6. Primarily, the delay in disposal of the representation has been attributed to the Central Government. Therefore, the Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4 is relevant on the point. On behalf of the respondent No. 4 a counter-affidavit and a supplementary counter-affidavit of Smt. L.P. Srivastava, Under Secretary , Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India New Delhi have been filed. Therefore, the Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4 is relevant on the point. On behalf of the respondent No. 4 a counter-affidavit and a supplementary counter-affidavit of Smt. L.P. Srivastava, Under Secretary , Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India New Delhi have been filed. In the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 it has been stated that the petitioner’s representation dated 17.3.2006 was actually received by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 31.3.2006 but it reached the concerned desk in Lok Nayak Bhawan Khan Market, New Delhi on 4.4.2006. In other words, respondent No. 4 accepts having received the representation not on 4.4.2006 but earlier to it on 31.3.2006. In paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner’s representation dated 17.3.2006 was received at the concerned desk by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 4.4.2006 and the case was put up before the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 13.4.2006. 14th, 15th and 16th April, 2006 were holidays and accordingly the representation was placed before the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 17.4.2006. The Joint Secretary considered it and forwarded it to the Addl. Secretary in the same Ministry on 18.4.2006 who in turn sent it to the Union of Home Secretary on that very day. The representation was rejected by the Union Home Secretary on 19.4.2006. In paragraph 10 of the same counter-affidavit it has been stated that 6th, 8th, 9th, 11th, 14th, 15th and 16th April, 2006 were holidays on account of Ram Navami, Saturday, Sunday, Mahavir Jayanti,Good Friday Saturday and Sunday. 7. The counter-affidavit of Babu Lal, Under Secretary, Home and confidential department U.P., Lucknow states that the petitioner’s representation dated 17.3.2006 alongwith parawise comments was sent by the District Magistrate, Allahabad to the Central Government as well as to the State Government vide letter dated 22.3.2006. However, the mode of forwarding the representation has not been specified. It has been submitted by the learned A.G.A., that the delay in receiving the representation i.e. between 22.3.2006 to 31.3.2006 is on account of postal delay and this delay cannot be attributed to any officer, as the officers concerned have taken all possible care to ensure that the representation reaches the concerned authority within time. 8. It has been submitted by the learned A.G.A., that the delay in receiving the representation i.e. between 22.3.2006 to 31.3.2006 is on account of postal delay and this delay cannot be attributed to any officer, as the officers concerned have taken all possible care to ensure that the representation reaches the concerned authority within time. 8. It is settled legal proposition that right to make a representation against an order of detention is a constitutional right under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and also statutory right under Section 8 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the National Security Act). Both the above provisions imposes obligation upon the Detaining Authority to afford a detenu an earliest possible opportunity of making representation against the detention order. Though none of the above provisions prescribes any time limit for dealing with the detenu’s representation but it follows that the representation if made by the detenu must be dealt with the sense of great urgency without loosing or wasting unnecessary time inasmuch as the preventive detention of the detenu is not punitive in nature or for any offence alleged to have been committed by him but for preventive purposes only which amounts to curtailment of the detenu’s fundamental right of the life and liberty. The liberty of an individual under the Constitution is very sacrosanct and, therefore, every step is required to be taken by each of the authorities concerned to ensure the earliest decision on the representation of the detenu. 9. In the case of D. Anuradha v. Joint Secretary, 2006 (55) ACC 830, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that if there is any delay in the disposal of representation, the detention order is liable to be set aside but there cannot be any fix time and the delay if any in disposal of the representation has to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case without laying down any absolute formula and each date’s delay in dealing with the representation must be adequately explained considering the expedition with which the representation must be considered. 10. The representation sent on 22.3.2006 has reached the concerned authority on 31.3.2006 within a reasonable time which one can expect post to take. Therefore, apparently there is no inaction or delayed action on the part of any officer concerned. 10. The representation sent on 22.3.2006 has reached the concerned authority on 31.3.2006 within a reasonable time which one can expect post to take. Therefore, apparently there is no inaction or delayed action on the part of any officer concerned. The delay if any on account of postal vagaries could not have been avoided and therefore, cannot be termed as fatal to the continued detention. The Supreme Court in the case of Ahmad Nasar v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 1999 SCC (Cri.) 1469 has clearly ruled that inefficiency of the postal system does not amount to negligence or inaction on the part of the Government Officer in sending and considering the representation. 11. It is admitted that the representation was received by the Ministry concerned on 31.3.2006 and by the concerned desk on 4.4.2006. No explanation has been given as to why it took almost four days for placing the representation from one desk to another in the concerned Ministry even if the office where it was received and the office where it was to be dealt with were situated at two different places. Thus there is no explanation for this delay. 12. After 4.4.2006 when the representation was received at the concerned desk, according to the counter-affidavit it was dealt with by the O.S.D., for the first time on 13.4.2006 but no action was taken on the said representation between 4.4.2006 till 13.4.2006. Even accepting that 6, 8, 9, and 11th April, 2006 were holidays. There is no explanation as to what was done with the representation on 5th, 7th, 10th and 12th of April, 2006. It is a settled legal proposition that in a given set of circumstances even a few days delay may be fatal whereas in another set of circumstances a longer delay may still be valid or treated as validly explained. The crux of the matter is the manner in which the delay has been explained. Where the delay has been sufficiently explained, it would not be fatal but in a case where there is no explanation for the delay on certain dates, it may amount to carelessness on the part of the authorities in dealing with the representation. So the test is not the duration or the range of delay but how it is explained by the authorities concerned vide 1999 SCC (Cri.) 93, Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu and others. So the test is not the duration or the range of delay but how it is explained by the authorities concerned vide 1999 SCC (Cri.) 93, Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu and others. To our mind there is no explanation of any kind explaining the inaction on the part of the Central Government in dealing with the presentation on the above dates. Thus it is a case where the delay in considering the representation has not been satisfactorily explained and the delay has been caused on account of casual approach and the indifferent attitude of the officers concerned dealing with the representation in the Central Government. This delay would have been easily avoided provided the officers have acted with the sense of urgency required to deal with the matters involving personal liberty of a citizen. 13. Thus we have no hesitation to hold that the above representation of the petitioner remained unattained by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Government between 31.3.2006 to 4.4.2006 and further between 4.4.2006 to 13.4.2006 for which periods no explanation has been furnished. 14. Accordingly, we allow the writ petition holding that the continued detention of the petitioner is illegal. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted otherwise in connection with any other offence. 15. In view of the fact that the petition had succeeded on the very first point, there is no need for us to dwell on the other points raised on behalf of the petitioner. ————