JUDGMENT Asok Potsangbam, J. 1. The challenge in this petition is against the order under No. TCA.8/2004/Pt-IV/164 dated 27.9.2007 issued by the District Magistrate, Tinsukia District, Assam under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', detaining the petitioner, Shri Dibakar Moran @ Rabin Baruah @ Dharmeswar Deori, and the order under No. PLA.739/07/182, dated 26.11.2007 issued by the respondent No. 2, the Govt. of Assam, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act of 1980 thereby confirming the detention of the petitioner for a period of 12 months w.e.f. the date of detention. 2. The detention order dated 27.9.2007 was approved by the State Government on 5.10.2007 and the approval was communicated to the petitioner on 10.10.2007 and on the report of the Advisory Board, the detention of the petitioner was confirmed by the Government, vide order dated 16.10.2007. 3. Though the petitioner has taken several grounds challenging the detention and confirmation orders as referred to above, he has chosen to assail the impugned orders mainly on the grounds of delay in disposing the representation and/or non-disposal of the representation. The respondents have filed their respective affidavits-in-opposition. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he had submitted a joint representation dated 11.10.2007 against his detention order dated 27.9.2007, to the Central Government (respondent No. 1), State Government (respondent No. 2), Chairman, Advisory Board (respondent No. 3) and the District Magistrate, Tinsukia, the Detaining Authority (respondent No. 4) and the crux of his argument rests on delay and non-disposal of the representation referred to above. 5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as per the affidavit dated 7.6.2008 of the State Govt. the representation of the petitioner dated 11.10.2007 was considered and rejected on 22.5.2008 and that there is a delay of 222 days in disposing the representation of the detenu and no explanation whatsoever has been given on the aforesaid delay of 222 days. The learned Addl. GA appearing for the State Government has fairly admitted that no explanation whatsoever has been given explaining the delay in the Govt. affidavit. The learned Addl. GA appearing for the State Government has fairly admitted that no explanation whatsoever has been given explaining the delay in the Govt. affidavit. Admittedly, the representation dated 11.10.2007 of the petitioner was received by the respondent No. 4 on 12.10.2007 as disclosed in his affidavit but there is no averment/statement about the disposal of the representation by the respondent No. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the abovementioned representation was never disposed of by the respondent No. 4 nor the petitioner was ever communicated about the disposal of the representation by the respondent No. 4 and on this count also, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. We find considerable force in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 6. It is settled position of law that a representation submitted by a detenu is required to be expeditiously disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the National Security Act and if there is any delay in the disposal of the representation by the competent authority, the same has to be satisfactorily explained with cogent reasons. The instant case is a classic case of delay of 222 days in disposing of the representation of the petitioner by the State Govt. and that too without giving any reason and also non-disposal of the representation by the respondent No. 4, the District Magistrate. The delay in disposing the representation and non-disposal of the representation, as discussed above, vitiate the detention and confirmation order of the petitioner under National Security Act, 1980 and as such the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the detention order dated 27.9.2007, the approval order dated 5.10.2007 and the confirmation order dated 16.11.2007 are hereby quashed and set aside and the petitioner, namely Sri Dibakar Moran @ Rabin Baruah @ Dharmeswar Deori, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in other case(s). The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.