JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J.—Kamlesh Pathak, the petitioner/detenu, has questioned the Constitutional validity of his detention order dated 28.1.2009 (Annexure 3), under National Security Act, 1980, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), passed by Detaining Authority, District Magistrate, Auraiya, respondent No. 1, wielding his power, under Section 3(3) of the Act. 2. Grounds for petitioner’s detention, based on the dossier supplied by the police authorities, as was served to him along with Annexure 3, in compliance with Section 8 of the Act, are that Manoj Kumar Gupta, Executive Engineer, Auraiya was murdered by Shekhar Tiwari, MLA and his socio criminises, regarding which a State wise closer strike was organized by the Samajwadi Party on 25.12.2008. To maintain law and order during that strike, at Tahsil crossing in Auraiya city, police picket headed by in-charge inspector was posted, when at 11.30 a.m., the petitioner accompanied by his brothers Santosh Pathak and Ramu Pathak along with hundred and fifty other persons started torning off banners and posters in Homganj market. When the local police endeavoured to forbade them from indulging into said lawless disorderly immoral behaviour, the mob started pelting stones and iron rods. Warning calls by the police went unheeded and the lawless conglomeration, continued it’s stone pelting missile war and marched towards the office of the Circle Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Auraiya. In the office of Circle Officer furnitures were broken, office records and a motor-cycle of constable Vinod Kumar, parked outside, were torched with combustible inflammable petrol. Office record of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s office was also set a blaze and the furnitures were damaged. To curb such social order damaging activities, additional police force, tear gas squad, PAC, fire brigade and police from neighbouring police stations were requisitioned and were pressed into action. Use of tear gas by the law enforcing agencies was protested by pelting of stones and iron pieces which caused injuries to the police personnels. Shattering public order, the petitioner and the lawless mob sprinted towards national highway. However, the petitioner along with his twenty five associates, were arrested. Use of tear gas by the law enforcing agencies was protested by pelting of stones and iron pieces which caused injuries to the police personnels. Shattering public order, the petitioner and the lawless mob sprinted towards national highway. However, the petitioner along with his twenty five associates, were arrested. Because of such lawless activities, social order of district Auraiya was shattered, shutters and doors of the shops were pulled down, and people started running hither and thither, loosing their mobile phones while running, which were seized by the police force and recovery memo, thereof, (Annexure 1 to the grounds of detention) was scribed by SI Pati Ram Nagar at the dictation of In-charge Inspector Auraiya. Against the petitioner and his associates FIR of crime number 487 of 2008, for offences under Sections 147/148/149/307/436/336/332/353, IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and 3/6 Damage of Public Property Act was registered at 2.35 p.m. on 25.12.2008, itself, vide GD No. 28 (Annexure 2 to the grounds of detention). 3. Eroding social order by pelting of iron pieces and stones, the petitioner and the mob, injured 7 police personnels who were got medically examined (vide Annexures 3 to 9 to the grounds of detention) in Primary Health Centre, Auraiya. From the perusal of injury reports District Magistrate concluded that, if, the petitioner can cause injuries to the law enforcing agencies while they were discharging their lawful and legal duties of maintaining public peace, law and order, then it was established that a sense of insecurity must have pervaded in the minds of general public detrimental to the public order. 4. Further grounds were that while advancing towards Subhash crossing and reaching Khanpur crossing at the national highway, on 25.12.2008, plying vehicles were stoned by the petitioner and the mob, which was endeavoured to be stopped by the law enforcing agencies, consequently they were also targeted with flying stones and iron pieces missiles injuring three police personnels, (vide Annexures 12, 13 and 14 to the grounds of detention). Roadways bus No. UP 79 B-0727 was torched by the mob causing panic amongst driver, conductor and passengers who sprinted to take shelter to save their lives, which totally disarrayed the social and public order. The bus was totally burnt. Technical examination of the said bus, by UPSRTC Foreman, was annexed as Annexure 15. Roadways bus No. UP 79 B-0727 was torched by the mob causing panic amongst driver, conductor and passengers who sprinted to take shelter to save their lives, which totally disarrayed the social and public order. The bus was totally burnt. Technical examination of the said bus, by UPSRTC Foreman, was annexed as Annexure 15. National high way was jammed and the police had to use force to arrest the petitioner and his ten associates, for which an arrest memo was also penned down. FIR of crime No. 487A/08 for offences under Sections 147/148/149/307/436/336/332/353, I.P.C., 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and 3/6 Damage of Public Property Act was registered at the police station Auraiya at 3.30 p.m. vide GD No. 31, on the same day, which are Annexures 10 and 11 to the grounds of detention. 5. Setting a blaze the bus and 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses in respect of the incident occurred at the office of C.O. and SDM, (Vide Annexure 16 to 21), indicated potentiality to disturb public order and even tempo of public life and hence those activities were other grounds of detention mentioned by the Detaining Authority. Further it was also recorded, in the grounds, that the Detaining Authority had perused general diary No. 33 dated 25.12.2008 of 4.15 p.m. and became convinced that the activities of the petitioner had aroused anger and acrimony amongst youths between 18 and 20 years of age and therefore they started torning off banners and posters and started indulging in hooligan rowdiness. Eight of those boys were arrested by the police under Section 151, Cr.P.C., which further posed public order problem. All the activities of the petitioner and his associates eroded public order of Auraiya city which was recorded in the general diary vide Annexure 22. All the above incidents were also reported with prominence in the daily newspapers like Dainik Jagran, Aaj, Hindustan, under various titles, vide Annexures 23 to 23N, which incident reporting affected life of the citizens in whole of the State. PAC was pressed into action to quell the activities of the petitioner vide Annexure 24. 6. All the above incidents were also reported with prominence in the daily newspapers like Dainik Jagran, Aaj, Hindustan, under various titles, vide Annexures 23 to 23N, which incident reporting affected life of the citizens in whole of the State. PAC was pressed into action to quell the activities of the petitioner vide Annexure 24. 6. It was further mentioned, in the grounds, that respondent No. 2, Detaining Authority also considered FIRs and charge-sheets of various crime numbers registered against the petitioner (vide Annexure 25 to 30) which indicated disturbing of election process, looting of a petrol pump, snatching of a 303 bore rifle relating to Cr. No. 43/91 (vide Annexure 31) assault and wrongful confinement, (vide annexures Nos. 32 and 33), getting the accused of a murder case freed from lawful custody, (Annexure 34 and 35) and breaching Section 144, Cr.P.C. order, (Annexure 36 and 37). It was further recorded that the petitioner had surrendered on 27.1.2009 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya, and had filed his bail application, Annexure 38, which was rejected by the Court and hence the petitioner had filed bail application before the Session’s Judge, (Annexure 39), which was pending and there were every likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail. District Magistrate was of the opinion that if the petitioner is released on bail then he will re-indulge into the activities detrimental to the social order. It was further mentioned in the grounds that a dossier containing above facts had been submitted by the police of Police Station Auraiya which had also been recommended by Additional Police Superintendent, and Police Superintendent, Auraiya, (Annexure 40) for detaining the detenu/petitioner. 7. On the above dossier, Detaining Authority became subjectively satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner under the Act, for stopping him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and hence, he ordered for his detention on 28.1.2009, (Annexure 3) which detention order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus petition. 8. Along with the grounds, petitioner was also informed regarding his rights to send a representations to various State and Central Authorities and Advisory Board, and the manner and mode in which those representations had to be made. He was also informed regarding his rights of personal hearing, before the Advisory Board. 9. 8. Along with the grounds, petitioner was also informed regarding his rights to send a representations to various State and Central Authorities and Advisory Board, and the manner and mode in which those representations had to be made. He was also informed regarding his rights of personal hearing, before the Advisory Board. 9. The detention order along with the grounds and all connected papers were dispatched to the State Government by the Detaining Authority on the same day on which the detention order was passed, which was received to the State Government on 29.1.2009 and after carefully examining the record of the case, the State Government approved the detention order on 3.2.2009, in compliance with Section 3(4) of the Act. The approval was communicated to the respondent No. 1 on 4.2.2009 and to the Detenu/petitioner on 5.2.2009. Union Government was also informed by the State Government on 5.2.2009, through speed post, under Section 3(5) of the Act. 10. After being served with the detention order and the grounds thereof, the petitioner made a representation on 11.2.2009, Annexure 5, to the writ petition. The said representation was received in the office of the District Magistrate on 12.2.2009, and the same day the Detaining Authority called for the comments from the sponsoring authorities, which was submitted to him on 13.2.2009. Thereafter para wise comments were prepared by the Detaining Authority on 14.2.2009 and, following day being a Sunday, the District Magistrate/Detaining Authority rejected petitioner’s representation on 16.2.2009, which rejection order was served to the detenu petitioner on 18.2.2009. 11. Detenu’s representation along with para wise comments, dispatched by the Detaining Authority on 16.2.2009, to the State Authorities and to the Advisory Board, through special messenger, was received to the State Government on 17.2.2008 and on the same day it was dispatched to the Advisory Board, through a letter, and to the Central Government, by speed post. On the next day (18.2.2008), concerned Section of the State Government prepared detailed notes on the said representation and, on that day itself, Under Secretary and Joint Secretary considered it and placed it before the higher authorities for their final decision. The representation was finally rejected by the State Government on 19.2.2009, which rejection was communicated to the District Magistrate on 20.2.2009, through a radiogram, which in turn was communicated to the petitioner, through Jail Superintendent, the same day. 12. The representation was finally rejected by the State Government on 19.2.2009, which rejection was communicated to the District Magistrate on 20.2.2009, through a radiogram, which in turn was communicated to the petitioner, through Jail Superintendent, the same day. 12. State Government referred petitioner’s case along with complete records including comments from the District Magistrate, petitioner’s representation, to the Advisory Board on 4.2.2009. Advisory Board informed the State Government, on 19.2.2009, that it will consider petitioner’s case on 25.2.2009 and therefore detenu petitioner was accordingly informed on 21.2.2009. On 25.2.2009, in the presence of the petitioner, his representation was rejected by the Advisory Board and the State Government received its communication on 17.3.2009, vide a letter of the even date. Once again the State Government examined Detenu’s case a fresh and finally confirmed his detention order on 23.3.2009, under Section 12 of the Act, for a period of 12 months from the date of his actual detention i.e. 28.1.2009. The same day (23.3.2009) radiogram of confirmation was sent by the State Government which was received to the Detaining Authority on the same day at 9.25 p.m. and, in turn, it was informed to the petitioner on 25.3.2009. 13. Deputy Jailor, district Jail Pilibhit, in his counter affidavit has recorded various dates mentioned above regarding the detention order, representation, communication of various orders, to the petitioner detenu, but for the sake of brevity, we do not repeat the same. 14. Respondent No. 1, Detaining Authority had also communicated the detention order, the grounds thereof, detenu petitioner’s representation and his comments to the Union of India, respondent No. 4, on 17.2.2009, (This date is different in the counter affidavit by Union of India as to be 16.2.2009), which was received to the Union of India on 19.2.2009. State Government had also informed it, vide it’s letter dated 4.2.2009, (This date is different in the counter affidavit of the State Government as to be 5.2.2009), which was received on the concerned desk, in the Ministry of Home Affairs, on 11.2.2009. It was placed before under Secretary on13.3.2009, who, after carefully considering the same placed it before Deputy Secretary (Legal) on the same day who appended his notes on 13.3.2009 itself. During that period, the concerned Section had received a “large number of representations relates to the detention under NSA, especially from Uttar Pradesh. It was placed before under Secretary on13.3.2009, who, after carefully considering the same placed it before Deputy Secretary (Legal) on the same day who appended his notes on 13.3.2009 itself. During that period, the concerned Section had received a “large number of representations relates to the detention under NSA, especially from Uttar Pradesh. Further the concerned had proceeded on medical leave for 20 days and consequently the work concerning his desk got adversely effected and it took about two weeks to clear backlog on a chronological order”. Joint Secretary considered the detenu’s representation, after his return from tour, on 16.3.2009 and placed it before the Union Home Secretary, who could consider it only on 27.3.2009, due to “pre-occupation with various urgent and pressing security related issues during relevant period”. Examining detenu’s case and the nature of his activities, the Home Secretary rejected Detenu’s representation, which was communicated to the Detenu through crash wireless message dated 31.3.2009 followed by a letter for the said purpose dated 2.4.2009. 15. In the back grounds of above factual scenario, that the petitioner has challenged his detention order before us. 16. On the above facts, we have heard Sri G.S. Hajela, Advocate in support of this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition, Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned AGA and Sri P.K. Jaiswal holding brief of Smt. Poonam Singh, learned counsel for the Union of India. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detention order of the petitioner is bad in law and has been passed without any application of mind. He further contended that at the worst, the activities of the detenu petitioner can be considered to be reletable to law and order and not public order and, therefore, there was no reason for the District Magistrate to detain the petitioner. It was further submitted that the District Magistrate had considered stale and non-existent grounds, which had affected his subjective satisfaction and, therefore, the detention order cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. It was further argued that the Detaining Authority had also looked into extraneous materials and, therefore, also the detention order cannot be sustained. It was next submitted that the detention order is politically motivated and was implanted malafidely because of political rivalry. It was also submitted that the detention order is based on non-consideration of material aspects, which could have affected the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. It was next submitted that the detention order is politically motivated and was implanted malafidely because of political rivalry. It was also submitted that the detention order is based on non-consideration of material aspects, which could have affected the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. It was also argued that the Sponsoring Authority, while submitting dossier to the Detaining Authority, had not supplied relevant materials to him, which could have affected his subjective satisfaction and, therefore, also the detention order cannot be sustained. It was further argued that the bail application in respect of one of the crime was not supplied to the Detaining Authority and, therefore, also the detention order cannot be sustained. It was further submitted that the Detaining Authority has not recorded any subjective satisfaction regarding likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail in near future and, therefore, also the detention order cannot be sustained. In support of this last submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of Ajay Kumar @ Ajay v. State of U.P. and others, 1996 (33) ACC 911. In support of the argument that the bail application of the petitioner was not placed before the Detaining Authority, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in M. Ahmad Kutti v. Union of India, 1990 SCC ( Cr) 258; D.S. Chilawat v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1196 ; Kamrunnisa v. Union of India, 1991(1) SCC 128 and Ahmad Hussain v. Union of India. It was argued that the copy of bail application relating to one of the crime (crime No. 487-A of 2008) was supplied to the petitioner along with the grounds but, in relation to crime No. 487 of 2008, it was not at all supplied and, therefore, for the reason that the complete material was not supplied to the petitioner, the detention order cannot be sustained. It was also submitted that the detention order of the petitioner, which was passed in undue waste within two days, was based on politically motivated exercise and being based on non-application of mind, vague and stale grounds on extraneous consideration, deserves to be set aside. It was also submitted that the detention order of the petitioner, which was passed in undue waste within two days, was based on politically motivated exercise and being based on non-application of mind, vague and stale grounds on extraneous consideration, deserves to be set aside. It was further submitted that there has been an undue and unexplained delay on the part of the Union of India in considering the representation filed by the detenu petitioner and, therefore, also the detention order of the petitioner cannot be sustained. Concluding the argument, it was submitted that Habeas Corpus Writ Petition be allowed and the detention order of the petitioner (Annexure 3), dated 28.1.2009, be set aside and the petitioner be set at liberty. 18. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for Union of India on the contrary contended that the activity of the detenu petitioner, as was contained in the dossier, supplied to the Detaining Authority clearly indicated that the activities of the detenu petitioner related with breach of public order and, therefore, the District Magistrate, Auraiya was fully justified in passing the detention order. It was submitted that blocking of public highway, entering into the office of public servants, destroying furnitures and the public records were such activities, which definitely affected the public order and, therefore, it cannot be said that the activity of the detenu petitioner related only with law and order and not public order. It was further submitted that no extraneous material was considered by the Detaining Authority while passing the detention order and if the criminal background of the petitioner was taken into consideration by respondent No. 1, then no exception can be taken of that fact. Learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India also argued that there has been no delay on the part of the Union of India in disposing of the representation of the detenu petitioner. It is submitted that if the Home Secretary was pre-copied with certain other measures, the explanation offered by the Union of India in disposing of detenu’s representation remains fully explained and, therefore, it cannot be said that Union of India was at fault at any point of time in deciding the petitioner’s representation. Drawing the curtain of their arguments, it was submitted that the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition is bereft of merits and deserves to be dismissed. 19. Drawing the curtain of their arguments, it was submitted that the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition is bereft of merits and deserves to be dismissed. 19. We have considered the arguments raised by both the sides and have gone through the record of the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition along with various supplementary affidavits, counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits. We take the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner in seriatum. 20. First of all, it was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the activity of the petitioner related with law and order and not public order. The perusal of the grounds of the detention clearly indicates that the petitioner was protesting against the murder of Manoj Kumar Gupta, an engineer. The protest was for maintaining law and order and not breaching the same. Grounds clearly indicates that what was really intended by the petitioner was maintenance of law and order and not disturbance of public order. However, we could not loose site of the fact that the motive may be lawful but the manner in which the said motive was executed by the petitioner and his associates disturbed the public order. Blocking of public highway, entering into the office of public servants, destroying the furnitures and the public records were such activities, which definitely affected the public order. Even tempo of public life certainly was got affected by the activities of the petitioner and his associates and, therefore, it cannot be said that the activity of the petitioner was reletable only to law and order and not public order. In such a view, the first contention raised by counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable and we hereby hold that the detenu’s activities related to the disturbance of public order and it definitely eroded even tempo of public life. 21. Coming to the another aspect of the arguments that the District Magistrate, while detaining the petitioner had considered those aspects also which were not relevant and germane to the detention order and that he had also considered extraneous materials, we find that the said argument is well founded. The grounds for detaining the petitioner emerged on 25th January, 2009, on which date, it was alleged that the petitioner started protesting against the murder of Manoj Kumar Gupta, an engineer, which had occurred on 23/24.12.2008. The grounds for detaining the petitioner emerged on 25th January, 2009, on which date, it was alleged that the petitioner started protesting against the murder of Manoj Kumar Gupta, an engineer, which had occurred on 23/24.12.2008. While detaining the petitioner, on the said ground, before consideration of his past history and criminal cases pending against him for more than two decades ago were totally irrelevant. From the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, the criminal history of the petitioner has been filed. In the said criminal history, three crime numbers are of the year 1984 and one each are of 1985, 1991 and 2004. The District Magistrate looked into those criminal histories while detaining the petitioner, which had definitely affected his subjective satisfaction, which fact is well perceptible from the perusal of the grounds of detention. The Detaining Authority had recorded in detail those criminal histories. The crimes, which were committed in 1984 could not have been repeated after 25 years and the grounds of the detention does not indicate that those crimes were repeated in future. It is very clear that three of the crime numbers 479 of 1984, 484 of 1984 and 481 of 1984 related to one and the same incident which were never repeated again during the course of the 25 years. In such a view, we are clear in our opinion that the District Magistrate had taken into consideration non-existent stale materials while detaining the petitioner and this consideration makes impugned detention order vulnerable not liable to be sustained. 22. Ground that the petitioner was having a criminal history and was involved in many cases was a non existent ground. The date on which State wise protest was organized by Samajwadi party i.e. 25.1.2008, all those incidents which occurred prior to one and half years had already lost their efficacy. It is recalled here that under the preventive detention law, a person can be detained only for a period of 12 months. In such a view, passing of detention order for an incident which occurred more than 12 months ago, in our opinion, is not a justifiable legal exercise. If a person cannot be detained for a period of more than 12 months it indicates that the legislature itself was of the opinion that the effect of a prejudicial activity can remain only for such a period of 12 months. If a person cannot be detained for a period of more than 12 months it indicates that the legislature itself was of the opinion that the effect of a prejudicial activity can remain only for such a period of 12 months. Preventive detention is not punitive in nature. By detaining a person, he is neither convicted nor punished. The law of preventive detention has got a salutary purpose of forbidding recurrence of activities detrimental to the public order. If the legislature thought that the recurrence of the activity cannot take place after 12 months, passing of a detention order on such an activity which occurred prior to 12 months, is not sanctified by law. Consequently, we are also of the view that the grounds on which the petitioner was detained was based on non-existent ground. 23. Further it is to be noted that since the purpose of preventive detention is not punitive, exercise of power under the Act, therefore, cannot be with such ulterior motives. History sheet of a person is relevant only for determining reasonable prognosis of his future conduct as to whether detenu had the tendency to repeat the crime or not . But this does not authorise the State to count even on those incidents, where no live link between the activity and the preventive detention order existed. In the present case, gap of two decades had completely snapped the live link between the detention order and the grounds relied upon by the Detaining Authority, which grounds had definitely affected his subjective satisfaction. The purpose for which detenu was detained had no nexus with the disturbance of elections way back in the year 1984. Stale and non-existent grounds relied upon to detain the petitioner, are by itself sufficient to nullify the detention order. A balance has to be struck between personal liberty of a citizen on the one had and preservation of social order with safety and security of the country on the other. Tilting the said balance in favour of State, without valid and legally sustainable reasons, against the mandate of Statue, will render detention order vulnerable which could not be justified judicially. 24. The grounds of detention further indicates that some of the relevant materials have not been considered by the Detaining Authority at the time when he had passed the detention order. 24. The grounds of detention further indicates that some of the relevant materials have not been considered by the Detaining Authority at the time when he had passed the detention order. In this respect, we record that while considering the criminal history of the detenu petitioner, Detaining Authority had not considered the out come of those crimes. Further, if the Detaining Authority took into consideration criminal history of the petitioner, it should have considered the defence of the petitioner as well in those offences. Three of the crime numbers, as has been pointed out above, related with a single incident and, therefore, the Detaining Authority should have considered the fact whether there was any specific allegations against the petitioner in those crimes or not. Moreover, in crime number 43 of 1991 which related with loot and dacoity, final report had already been submitted exonerating the petitioner of the swelled charge. The factum of submission of final report was not brought to the knowledge of the Detaining Authority, which certainly would have affected his subjective satisfaction while forming an opinion against the petitioner and, therefore, such a non-consideration renders the impugned detention order illegal, which is also based on stale ground for the reasons mentioned above. 25. Coming to the another argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner that there has been an inordinate unexplained delay in disposing of the detenu’s representation by the Union of India, we find, from the counter affidavit filed by Union of India, that the detention order along with the grounds dispatched by the District Magistrate was received to the Union of India on 19.2.2009. State Government had also dispatched the grounds of detention along with Detaining Authority’s comments and representation of the detenu petitioner, on 4.2.2009, which was received to the Union of India on 11.2.2009. From 11.2.2009 till 13.3.2009, no acceptable or cogent explanation at all has been offered by the Union of India for not considering detenu’s representation. In this respect, the only relevant paragraphs of the counter affidavit by the Union of India are paragraphs 4 and 6 which we reproduced below : "4. That a report as envisaged under Section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980 about the detention of the petitioner was made by the Government of Uttar Pradesh vide their letter No. 111/2/234/2009-CX-6 dated 4.2.2009 to the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs. That a report as envisaged under Section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980 about the detention of the petitioner was made by the Government of Uttar Pradesh vide their letter No. 111/2/234/2009-CX-6 dated 4.2.2009 to the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs. The said report was received by the Central Government in the concerned desk in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 11.2.2009 and was put up to Under Secretary (NSA) on 13.3.2009 who carefully considered the case and submitted to Deputy Secretary (Legal) (who has been delegated powers by the Central Government to take note of such cases). Deputy Secretary (Legal) duly examined and took note of the report in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 13.3.2009................... 6. That during the relevant period the Section had received a large number of representation relates to detention under NSA, especially from Uttar Pradesh. Further the concerned Dealing hand proceeded on medical leave for 20 days and consequently the work concerning his desk got adversely effected and it took about two weeks to clear backlog on a chronological order. The representation of the detenue was processed in the Section for consideration at various levels in the Section, Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary (Legal) and submitted to Joint Secretary (IS), on 13.3.2009. The Joint Secretary considered the case on his return from tour and forwarded the same before the Union Home Secretary on 16.3.2009. It appears that due to pre-occupation with various urgent and pressing security related issues during relevant period the Home Secretary (who has been delegated powers by the Central Government to decide such cases) could consider the case of the detenue only on 27.3.2009. After consideration of the representation and the material on record show up that detenue has indulged in large scale lawlessness, attack on Police and destruction of public property has criminal history and poses threat to public order, the representation was rejected by the Union Home Secretary and the file was returned to Section through aforesaid levels. It is further humbly submitted that there has not been any deliberate delay or casualness in the matter." 26. In view of above averments, it is crystal clear that there has been a delay of 26 days by the Union of India in considering the representation of the detenu. It is further humbly submitted that there has not been any deliberate delay or casualness in the matter." 26. In view of above averments, it is crystal clear that there has been a delay of 26 days by the Union of India in considering the representation of the detenu. Explanation offered by the Union of India for this occasioned delay of 26 days is not at all satisfactory and acceptable and we, therefore, reject it. In such a view, we are left with no other option but to conclude that there has been an undue and unexplained delay on the part of the Union of India in considering detenu petitioner’s representation, which nullifies continued detention of the petitioner. 27. Since, we are of the opinion that the detention order (Annexure 3) passed by the District Magistrate, Auraiya, detaining the petitioner under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act cannot be sustained for the reasons mentioned above we do not deal with other aspects of the matter and the case laws cited before us. 28. For the reason mentioned above, we allow this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition, set aside the detention order of the petitioner, under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980, passed by District Magistrate, Auraiya, on 28.1.2009, vide Annexure 3, and direct the petitioner to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is under custody in connection with any other offence under legal orders. 29. There shall be no order as to cost. ————