Judgment :- P.K. MISRA, J. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The impugned order of detention passed on the allegation that the detenu is a Goonda is in question. 2. Even though several contentions have been raised, it is not necessary to refer to all those contentions, as, in our opinion, the contention relating to the delay in disposing of the representation is accepted. 3. From the materials on record, it appears that the representation dated 11. 2006 was received on 11. 2006 and remarks were called for on 11. 2006 and the remarks were received on 111. 2006. However, the file was submitted thereafter only on 211. 2006. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why, after the remarks were received, the file was not submitted immediately. In the absence of any explanation, we are inclined to quash the order of detention. 4. The aforesaid conclusion is supported by the earlier unreported decision of this court rendered in H.C.P.No.308/2006 dated 26. 2006, where on account of the unexplained delay of four days in placing the file, was found sufficient to quash the order of detention. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, we quash the order of detention dated 26. 2006 and the same is set aside and this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody if the detenu is not required in connection with any other case.