JUDGMENT A. K. GANGULY, C.J. : This writ petition for issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus has been filed challenging the order of detention dated 27.11.2006 based on the grounds of detention dated 27.11.2006. The order of detention was passed under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Na¬tional Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The said order and grounds of detention are challenged by the petitioner primarily on two grounds. The first ground is that there is a delay in the matter of consideration of the representation of the petitioner both by the State Government and the Central Government and there is no explanation for the delay. The second ground is that the report of the Superintendent of Police which formed the basis of the grounds of detention has not been furnished to the petitioner. In so far as the second ground is concerned, an additional affidavit has been filed by the State showing that the report of the Superintendent of Police was served on the petitioner. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the said ground. Therefore, the peti¬tioner’s challenge is confined only to the ground of unexplained delay in considering his representation as mentioned above. 3. So far as the ground of delay is concerned, the material facts are that after the order of detention was served on the petitioner, he made the representation in Oriya on 21.12.2006. The said representation of the petitioner was reject¬ed by the State Government and the same was communicated to him by a Memo. dated 16.1.2007 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Home (Special Section) Department while he was in custody. The rejection of petitioner’s representation by the Central Government was communicated to him on 22.1.2007 while he was in custody. Therefore, it appears that there is a delay of about 26 days in so far as rejection of his representation by the State Government is concerned and there is a delay of 33 days in so far as rejection of his representation by the Central Govern¬ment is concerned. 4. Therefore, it appears that there is a delay of about 26 days in so far as rejection of his representation by the State Government is concerned and there is a delay of 33 days in so far as rejection of his representation by the Central Govern¬ment is concerned. 4. In the context of the aforesaid facts which are admit¬ted from the records, it appears that in the affidavit which has been filed by the Central Government on the matter relating to disposal of representation of the petitioner has been dealt with in paragraphs 6 and 7. The said paragraphs are set out below : “6. It is also stated that a representation dated 21.12.2006 from the detenu along with the parawise comments of the detaining authority was received by the Central Government in the concerned Desk of Ministry of Home Affairs on 16.01.2007 through Government of Orissa vide letter No.36/C dated 4.1.2007. 7. 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 10.1.2007. The Under Secretary carefully considered the case and with her comments put up the same before the DS (S), Ministry of Home Affairs on 16.1.2007. The DS (S) carefully considered the same and put up the same before the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 17.1.2007. The Joint Secretary considered the case and forwarded the same before the Union Home Secretary on 18.1.2007. 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 18.1.2007 and the file was received back in the office of Joint Secretary on 19.1.2007 and same was received in the Section on 22.1.2007 (20th and 21st January, 2007 were holidays being Saturday and Sunday).” It does not appear that there is any explanation furnished by the Central Government for the delay of 33 days in the matter of consideration of the representation of the petitioner. It appears that the representation of the petitioner dated 21.12.2006 was received by the Central Government in the con¬cerned Desk of Ministry of Home Affairs on 16.1.2007 through the Government of Orissa vide its letter dated 4.1.2007. But para¬graph 7 makes some interesting reading. It appears that the representation of the petitioner dated 21.12.2006 was received by the Central Government in the con¬cerned Desk of Ministry of Home Affairs on 16.1.2007 through the Government of Orissa vide its letter dated 4.1.2007. But para¬graph 7 makes some interesting reading. In the said paragraph it has been stated that the representation of the petitioner was put up before the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 10.1.2007. This Court fails to understand that if the representa¬tion of the petitioner was received on 16.1.2007 how could it be put up before the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 10.1.2007. This has been stated on affidavit affirmed by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. So the absence of application of mind by the deponent is appar¬ent. Therefore, this Court is constrained to hold that no expla¬nation was given by the Central Government for non-consideration of the representation of the detenu-petitioner within a reasona¬ble time. 5. Now coming to the affidavit which has been filed by the Detaining Authority-opposite party No.1, it appears that the said affidavit has been affirmed by one Shri Jamil Ahmmed Khan on 13.6.2007 in which no explanation for the delay is given. The matter relating to consideration of the petitioner’s representa¬tion by the State Government has not been adverted to at all in the said affidavit. In the affidavit which has been filed by the State Government, affirmed by one Shri Kanhu Charan Sarangi on 18.6.2007, the matter relating to consideration of representation of the petitioner has been adverted to in paragraph 11. The said paragraph is set out of below : “That as regards paragraph 11 of the writ petition, it is respectfully submitted that the representation of the detenu dated 21.12.2006 against the order of detention was received in Home (S.S.) Department on 3.1.2007 along with parawise comments thereon form the District Magistrate, Dhenkanal. The same was processed promptly. The representation addressed to the Central Government was sent on 4.1.2007. The State Government after careful consideration rejected the representation of the detenu on 15.1.2007 and was communicated to the detenu in Home Depart¬ment letter No.128 dated 16.1.2007.” Within the four corners of the said paragraph, this Court fails to discern any explanation for the delay and there is a delay of 26 days as noted above. The State Government after careful consideration rejected the representation of the detenu on 15.1.2007 and was communicated to the detenu in Home Depart¬ment letter No.128 dated 16.1.2007.” Within the four corners of the said paragraph, this Court fails to discern any explanation for the delay and there is a delay of 26 days as noted above. On the basis of aforesaid facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there was unexplained delay in the matter of consideration of the represen¬tation of the petitioner both by the State Government and the Central Government. 6. Learned counsel for the State wanted a little time from this Court in order to place reliance on certain judgments and the Court adjourned the matter on 22.6.2007 which was a Friday and again it was posted for hearing on 25.6.2007, which was a Monday. On that date, the learned counsel for the State filed an additional affidavit in order to furnish explanation for the delay in the matter of consideration of representation of the petitioner. It may be noted that no leave was obtained to file the additional affidavit while seeking adjournment. However, by taking a liberal view, the Court has considered the additional affidavit filed by the State. 7. In the said additional affidavit, the matter relating to consideration of representation of the petitioner was referred to in paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6. From those paragraphs, it appears that the only explanation was that the representation of the petitioner was written in Oriya language and some time was taken to prepare the English version of the representation upon which the parawise comments of the Superintendent of Police were to be made. It appears that after obtaining the English version of the parawise comments from the Superintendent of Police, the peti¬tioner’s representation dated 21.12.2006 was transmitted by the Office of the detaining authority on 31.12.2006 and the same was received by the Government in the Home Department on that very day, i.e., 31.12.2006. But thereafter why 15 to 16 days’ time was taken has not been explained. This Court finds that the represen¬tation of the petitioner, written in Oriya, is running only upto 4-5 pages. For its translation and giving a parawise comments, 10 days’ time is rather long. But thereafter why 15 to 16 days’ time was taken has not been explained. This Court finds that the represen¬tation of the petitioner, written in Oriya, is running only upto 4-5 pages. For its translation and giving a parawise comments, 10 days’ time is rather long. Therefore, there was an unreasonable period of delay of 26 days by the State in not considering the representation of the petitioner and for such delay no satisfac¬tory explanation is forthcoming. 8. The law on this point is very clear. The Supreme Court has been repeatedly pointing out that even though no time limit is fixed in the matter of consideration of representation of the detenu it is the Constitutional mandate under Article 22(5) read with Article 21 of the Constitution that the authorities must keep in mind that such representation must be considered with utmost diligence and promptitude. The Supreme Court has taken this view having regard to the preservation of personal liberty of a citi¬zen specially when such liberty has been curtailed in view of the order of preventive detention passed under the said Act. In that, context, the Courts have always zealously guarded the procedural safeguards which have been provided to see that liberty of a citizen is not curtailed except by complying with the statutory safeguards rigidly. History of the personal liberty is the histo¬ry of complying with the procedural safeguards. So going by those principles, which have been reiterated by the Supreme Court over several decades, this Court finds that the delay of 26 days on the part of the State Government in consideration of the peti¬tioner’s representation without any cogent explanation vitiates the order of detention. 9. Reference in this connection be made to various deci¬sions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Those decisions are rendered in the cases of Logen Kumar Samal @ Valu v. State of Orissa & others, reported in CLT (2007) Supp. Crl.152, Bijay Parida v. State of Orissa & others, reported in (2006) 35 OCR 721, Sri Anil Samal v. State of Orissa & others., reported in (2006) 34 OCR 606, Shivasankar Das @ Pintu v. State of Orissa & others, reported in (2007)37 OCR 153 and Animesh v. State of Orissa & others, reported in 4 (2002) CLT 194. 10. Crl.152, Bijay Parida v. State of Orissa & others, reported in (2006) 35 OCR 721, Sri Anil Samal v. State of Orissa & others., reported in (2006) 34 OCR 606, Shivasankar Das @ Pintu v. State of Orissa & others, reported in (2007)37 OCR 153 and Animesh v. State of Orissa & others, reported in 4 (2002) CLT 194. 10. Learned Counsel for the State, however, has referred to two judgments in support of his contention that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the order of detention does not stand vitiated in the context of consideration of representation of the petitioner. The first decision relied upon by him was given in the case of State of Orissa & another v. Shri Manilal Singha¬nia & another, reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court 456. In that case, the representation of the petitioner was made by the detenu on 21.10.1974 and as the Chief Minister was not available in the station the same could not be placed before the Chief Minister and the Chief Minister was out of station between 7.11.1974 and 12.11.1974. The representation was placed before the Chief Minister on 12.11.1974 and was disposed of on that day. Under those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that there was no delay and the delay had been property ex¬plained. 11. The other judgments on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the State in Dharma Narayan Pattanaik alias Papu v. District Magistrate, Puri & others, reported in 2002 (Supp.) OLR 650. In that case representation was made by the detenu on 2.11.2001 and the same was rejected on 7.11.2001, i.e., within a period of five days. The same representation of the detenu was received by the Central Government on 15.11.2001 and the same was rejected on 16.11.2001. Therefore, within 14 days the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Central Government and there was also explanation for the said period of delay. In that decision the learned Judges of the Division Bench held that the delay of five days and 14 days would not vitiate the order of detention, specially when the delay has been ex¬plained. Therefore, the factual position in those two judgments are totally different from the factual position involved in this case. 12. In that decision the learned Judges of the Division Bench held that the delay of five days and 14 days would not vitiate the order of detention, specially when the delay has been ex¬plained. Therefore, the factual position in those two judgments are totally different from the factual position involved in this case. 12. For the reasons discussed above, this Court is con¬strained to quash the order of detention dated 27.11.2006 and also the grounds of detention dated 27.11.2006 passed against the petitioner. The petitioner be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.