JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J.—Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State. 2. The petitioner has been detained by the District Magistrate, Varanasi vide his order dated 31.5.2008 under the National Security Act, wielding his power under Section 3 (2) of the said Act. The grounds for detention are contained in Annexure 2 to this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition. 3. We do not consider it necessary to go into the details of the grounds as only on a short question of delay, this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition can be judgmented. 4. It is contended by Sri Vinay Saran, learned counsel for the detenu-petitioner that the activity, on the basis of which the petitioner-detenu was booked under National Security Act was dated 7.3.2008. The detenu was arrested on 24.4.2008 and 2.5.2008 was the date fixed for hearing of his bail application before the Sessions Judge, Varanasi. The detention order of the petitioner was passed on 31.5.2008, which was served on the same day through Superintendent District Jail, Varanasi. After receiving the detention order and the grounds thereof, under Section 8 of the Act, the petitioner made a representation on 11.6.2008, which was forwarded to the Detaining Authority through Superintendent Jail on the same day and was received to him as well. After receipt of the said representation, District Magistrate, Varanasi called for the comments from the sponsoring authority and, according to the case of the Detaining Authority, sponsoring authority submitted the said comments only on 18.6.2008 after a delay of 7 days. The grounds for not sending the comments by the sponsoring authority to the Detaining Authority, as has been pleaded in paragraph 3 of the supplementary counter affidavit by the Detaining Authority is “various pressing problems and other administrative works’. After receiving the comments from the sponsoring authority, the Detaining Authority rejected the representation of the petitioner on 21.6.2008, on which date it forwarded the detenu’s representation as well as his comments to the State Government and to the Union of India, other two respondents. 5. We do not consider it necessary to go into further details of facts. Since the detention of the petitioner was confirmed by the State Government as well as by Union of India, this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition has been filed challenging the detention order. 6. 5. We do not consider it necessary to go into further details of facts. Since the detention of the petitioner was confirmed by the State Government as well as by Union of India, this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition has been filed challenging the detention order. 6. Sri Vinay Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the explanation offered by the Detaining Authority that there was “pressing problems and other administrative works” in sending the comments by the sponsoring authority to the Detaining Authority, is no explanation at all. He further contended that in fact the terminology used in the counter affidavit by the Detaining Authority is so vague that it cannot be accepted at all as the explanation offered by the Detaining Authority to explain the delay caused at the hands of sponsoring authority. He further contended that had there been “pressing problem and other administrative works", the same should have come out through the affidavit of S.S.P. Varanasi which has not been furnished at all. He further submitted that such vague explanations in such matters where a person has been detained under the National Security Act, where he does not possess a right to bail, should not be accepted and it is the responsibility of the Detaining Authority to explain each and every delay occasioned especially in disposal of representation made by the detenu. In support of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Kamarunnisa v. State, AIR 1990 SC 1640. 7. On this maiden submission, learned counsel for the petitioner conclude his argument by praying that this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition be allowed and the detention order of the petitioner, vide Annexure 1 to this Petition, dated 31.5.2008, be set aside and the detenu be set at liberty. 8. Learned AGA, on the contrary, pointed out that since there was pressing problems therefore the sponsoring authority could not furnish the comments to the Detaining Authority and, therefore, the delay of 7 days should not be considered to be so unreasonable as to set aside the detention order. 9. We have considered the arguments of both the sides. We are of the view that the explanation offered by the Detaining Authority that there was various “pressing problems and other administrative works” is not at all acceptable. 9. We have considered the arguments of both the sides. We are of the view that the explanation offered by the Detaining Authority that there was various “pressing problems and other administrative works” is not at all acceptable. A lame excuse of administrative work and pressing problems, without specifying the same is no reason not to dispose of detenu’s representation. Administrative work is the discharge of the official duty by the Detaining Authority as a District Magistrate. One of his duty is also the disposal of the representation of the detenu without any unreasonable delay and this duty, which has been casted upon him is his statutory responsibility which too is his administrative work. The Detaining Authority cannot be allowed to escape his responsibility of disposal of detenue’s representation expeditiously on the lame excuse of administrative work. Moreover, we do not know what were the pressing problems for the two authorities so as to unable them to dispose of the representation of the detenu-petitioner expeditiously even though the admitted case is that the representation was received by the Detaining Authority on 11.6.2008 but was disposed of by him only on 21.6.2008 after getting the comments on 18.6.2008. 10. On the above discussion, we are of the view that there has been an unreasonable delay in sending the comments by the sponsoring authority to the Detaining Authority for the disposal of the representation made by the detenu and there was also unreasonable delay in deciding his such representation by the Detaining Authority and, therefore, both couplet delays makes the detention order vulnerable, liable to be set aside. 11. We allow this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition by setting aside the detention order dated 31.5.2009 (Annexure 1 to this writ petition) and directed the petitioner to be set at liberty forthwith unless and until he is wanted in another case and is incarcerated under legal orders. ————