JUDGMENT By the Court.—This habeas corpus petition has been filed for setting aside an order of detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as NSA) dated 4.2.2009 and the consequent detention of the petitioner. The grounds of detention dated 4.2.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad mentioned that the petitioner and his companions tried to disturb communal harmony in the District. With this object they distributed pamphlets to the Hindus “to rise” and “to go to Panda Bagh temple", which caused fear and hurt the communal sentiments of people belonging to other faiths. Sri Vijay Kumar Mishra, in-charge Kotwali Farrukhabad reached the spot with a police force to enquire whether communal harmony was being disturbed by the actions of the petitioner and his companions. A case was registered under Section 295-A, IPC against the petitioner and his companions. 2. On 18.1.2009 at 10 a.m. Sub-Inspector Vijay Kumar Mishra reached the Panda Bagh temple situated at railway road Farrukhabad with police force. He found the petitioner along with his companions numbering between 400-500 raising slogans with the objective of disturbing communal harmony. They were told that Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been promulgated in the District and that no attempt should be made for taking out any rally. Even then the petitioner and his companions proceeded to make serious allegations and attempted to take out a rally without the permission of the administration. Looking to the seriousness of the situation the C.O. Farrukhabad, A.D.M. Sadar and other officials reached the spot with police force and told the processionists not to proceed, but the latter paid no heed to their requests. The petitioner fired with his revolver at the police party, which missed, however his companions then attacked the police party with lathi, dandas and stones because of which police driver Ram Veer Singh, Sub-Inspector Sri Surendra Singh Bhadoria, Constables Dharmendra Singh and Udai Pal Singh, Home Guard Shishupal Singh and Pheru Singh received injuries. The motor-cycle of SI Surendra Singh Bhadoria was set on fire. When the police tried to control the mob, the petitioner and his companions became more aggressive. They entered into the Kotwali, Farrukhabad police station and destroyed furniture and broke glasses and other items. As a result the Tata Spacio vehicle of the A.D.M. and the vehicles of other police officers were damaged. When the police tried to control the mob, the petitioner and his companions became more aggressive. They entered into the Kotwali, Farrukhabad police station and destroyed furniture and broke glasses and other items. As a result the Tata Spacio vehicle of the A.D.M. and the vehicles of other police officers were damaged. The petitioner and his companions entered Police Chowki Palra, P.S. Kotwali Farrukhabad and locked up the police personnel in a room and set fire to their items of daily consumption kept there. 18 companions of the petitioner were arrested by the police force at 2.00 p.m. but the petitioner himself escaped along with his revolver from the place of occurrence. As a result of these activities there was grave disturbance in Farrukhabad town. The shops were closed and fear, terror and insecurity was created amongst the general public. People entered their houses and the transport of the city came to a standstill. Persons belonging to one community especially became insecure and communal tension was generated in the city and public order was totally disturbed. This matter was covered by different newspapers. As the petitioner’s bail had been rejected by the Magistrate and the D.M. was hopeful that the bail would be granted by the Sessions Court and there was apprehension that the petitioner would again create an atmosphere of fear and terror, hence, it was thought necessary to preventively detained the petitioner under the preventive law. 3. In view of the gravity of the allegations, the petitioner’s counsel Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate has confined himself to one submission that the representation of the petitioner dated 14.2.2009 which was submitted to various parties including the Central Government through the Jailer was considered with inordinate delay by the Central Government. It was pointed out that the District Magistrate forwarded the petitioner’s representation with his comments on 16.2.2009 to the State Government after calling for comments from the S.P. Farrukhabad. It was received by the State Government on 18.2.2009 and even rejected on 20.2.2009. This showed the utter promptitude in disposing of the representation of the petitioner by the State Government. 4. But the treatment accorded to the petitioner’s representation by the Central Government tells another story. The State Government forwarded the representation to the Central Government by speed post on 18.2.2009. This showed the utter promptitude in disposing of the representation of the petitioner by the State Government. 4. But the treatment accorded to the petitioner’s representation by the Central Government tells another story. The State Government forwarded the representation to the Central Government by speed post on 18.2.2009. The District Magistrate also forwarded a copy of the representation to the Central Government on 16.2.2009 by speed post. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Union of India by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on behalf of Union of India, it was submitted that the representation was received in the desk of the Ministry on 26.2.2009 from the State Government along with a letter of the State Government dated 18.2.2009. After that we come to hear of some shocking developments. The representation could not be processed as the dealing hand had proceeded on leave and he returned from leave only on 9.3.2009. Keeping in view that fresh cases continued to be received, there was a backlog of a large number of cases. As a result the representation of the petitioner after being processed at various levels i.e. Under Secretary, Directors and Joint Secretary levels was placed before the Union of India, Home Secretary only as late as 31.3.2009. This was almost 41 days after the said representation had admittedly reached the Central Government. 6. The Union Home Secretary then considered it and rejected the representation of the petitioner on 6.4.2009 and marked the file back to the Joint Secretary. Because of intervening holidays, the file reached the section only on 13.4.2009. Then the message was sent on 13.4.2009 to the Home Secretary, Government of U.P. and Superintendent District Jail Fatehgarh informing them that the representation of the petitioner Pranshu Dutt Dwivedi was considered and rejected by the Union Home Secretary on 6.4.2009. 7. In Harshala Santosh Patil v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2006)12 SCC 211 , where with the consent of the sponsoring authority on the representation had been received on April 19, 1999 and the District Magistrate failed to apply it’s mind for 5 days till 24th April, 1999 for disposing of the representation, the consideration of the representation was held to be delayed and the detention was set aside. 8. 8. In Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1999 SC 684 , where consideration of the representation had been delayed merely because the Minister was on tour, it was held to be an unjustified ground for permitting violation of the fundamental rights of liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, as the said file could easily have been forwarded to the Minister. The said decision mentions that “absence of Minister at the Headquarters is not sufficient to justify the delay, since the file could be reached to the Minister with utmost promptitude in a case involving the vital fundamental right of the citizen." 9. Here, simply because a petty official, who deals with these vital files relating to matters of preventive detention is on leave between 18.2.2009 and 9.3.2009, by then a huge backlog of cases relating to preventive detention has been created and the file is placed before the Home Secretary, Union of India only on 31.3.2009, such casualness and lethargy in dealing with such sensitive matters shocks the conscience of this Court. For this inordinate delay of 47 days in disposal of the representation by the Central Government which has not been adequately and reasonably explained at all by the Central Government, we have no option but to quash the continue detention of the petitioner. The petitioner shall be released forthwith unless wanted in connection with other case. 10. Before parting, we would be failing in our duty if we do not express our anguish and despair in the manner in which the Central Government has been dealing with the matters relating to preventive detention. Since, the Constitution affords a right to the petitioner to also make a representation to the Central Government, we would have hoped that the Central Government would have been conscious of its responsibility and taken every precaution to ensure that any casualness or dilatoriness on its part should not provide a technical ground for challenging an order of detention in a habeas corpus petition, with respect to persons who may be a threat to public order in different states or union territories and whom the State is striving to detain, so that public order may be preserved. 11. 11. Surely, if a lowly minion in the Home Secretary’s office dealing with the files relating to preventive detention goes on leave, someone else could have been entrusted with forwarding such files, so that this lame excuse that the official had gone on leave, hence the representation could not be considered by the concerned authority for almost 41 days would not need to be trotted up. 12. We are noticing that the main cause why habeas corpus petitions under NSA or other preventive laws are being allowed in the High Court are due to such lapses on the part of the Central Government. State Governments, by contrast we are seeing, are becoming quite vigilant in these matters, and have been showing commendable promptitude where detention orders are involved which are usually not set aside owing to delays and other lapses on the part of the State Government. But it is only the Central Government, which we find has evolved a long winded procedure of calling for comments on many occasions regarding the criminal history etc. or as in the instant case where a petty official has gone on leave resulting in the movement of the files coming to a standstill, leaving no option with the Court, but to set aside the detention order owing to the casual treatment accorded to the petitioner’s representation by the Centre. 13. In our earlier order, in this case on 30.7.2009, we had also expressed our anguish and even warned that if corrective measures are not taken by the Additional Solicitor General, Union of India at Allahabad, or other concerned officials, we may have no option, but to summon the Home Secretary, Union of India to explain these lapses on the part of the Union of India. We had also indicated that such laxity often generates an impression that the Central Government is not concerned about the problem of public order in various states and hence, it is complicit in allowing the habeas corpus petitions preferred by accused who need to be preventively detained for preserving public order, to be allowed and the detenues set free. 14. We had also indicated that such laxity often generates an impression that the Central Government is not concerned about the problem of public order in various states and hence, it is complicit in allowing the habeas corpus petitions preferred by accused who need to be preventively detained for preserving public order, to be allowed and the detenues set free. 14. We also notice that the Central Government is represented on each occasion when a habeas corpus petition is filed by different counsel, as a result, few counsel have specialised in this special branch relating to preventive laws and they are unable to give effective assistance to the Court to answer the technical points raised in these petitions. 15. We hope that corrective action will also be taken on this score apart from the above issues that we have indicated in this order as well as in our earlier order dated 30.7.2009. 16. The Office is directed to hand over a copy of this order to Shri Ashok Nigam, learned Additional Solicitor General of India at Allahabad for compliance within ten days. A copy of this order, as well as our earlier order dated 30.7.2009 shall also be forwarded to the Home Secretary, Union of India, New Delhi for necessary action by the Registry at the earliest. 17. With these observations, the petition is allowed. ————