JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, C.J.:-- 1. Petitioner is the wife of the detenu, namely, Shri Chingangbam Tarunkumar Singh @ Khoicha @ Ibomcha. She has filed this writ application challenging the detention of her husband in pursuance of an order passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West dated 03.12.2013 under Section 3 sub-Section (3) of the National Security Act, 1980. From the grounds of detention at Annexure-A/2, it appears that the husband of the petitioner was an Advocate and joined the banned group namely, PLA sometime in 2006. He was arrested on 15.06.2008 and case was registered for commission of offence under Section 20UA(P) A. Act. However, he was released on bail on the same day. After being released on bail he continued to take active part in extortion of money from contractors, businessmen, shop keepers etc. On 23.11.2013 at about 1:45 p.m. he was again arrested and certain materials were seized from him. He was handed over to the Officer-in-Charge Imphal P.S. with a written report and seized articles. On the strength of the report, an FIR being No.318(11)2013 IPS was registered for commission of offence u/s. 121/121A IPC, 17/20UA (P) A. Act & 251-B) A. Act. He was sent to Police custody till 03.12.2013. On the very day, i.e. on 03.12.2013, the impugned order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West on the ground that the detenu, who is in police custody is likely to be released on bail in the near future by normal criminal court as bail is granted in similar cases by the criminal courts. 2. Shri A.K. Somorendro, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned detention order solely on the ground of delay in disposal of the representation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was 10 days' delay in disposing the representation by the State and there was about 17 days delay in disposal of the representation of the Union of India. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi-vs.-State of Manipur & Ors. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 618 , supporting his contention that in absence of any explanation for the delay in disposal of the representation, the order of detention is liable to be quashed. 3. Mr. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 618 , supporting his contention that in absence of any explanation for the delay in disposal of the representation, the order of detention is liable to be quashed. 3. Mr. Y. Ashang, learned G.A. appearing for the State respondents and Shri Amarjit Naorem, learned CGSC referred to their respective counter affidavits and submitted that the delay in disposal of the representation was not intentional and due to official process it consumed sometime. Therefore, the detenu cannot take advantage of the same for setting aside the order of detention. 4. From the counter affidavit of the State respondent No.2, we find that the order of detention was passed on 03.12.2013 and the detenu submitted his representation on 10.12.2013 and the said representation was disposed of by the State respondents on 20.12.2013. The State Government also forwarded the said representation of the detenu to the Central Government on 20.12.2013. The 10 (ten) days' time consumed by the State respondents in disposing of the representation is not explained in the counter affidavit. Though it was contended by the learned State counsel that there were three holidays and the rest period was consumed in the official process, there is no mention of the same in the counter affidavit. 5. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Government, it appears that the representation of the detenu was sent by the Government of Manipur to the Central Government on 20.12.2013 and it was received in the office of the Ministry of Home Affairs on 21.01.2014. Thereafter, the para-wise comments on the representation were called from the Government of Manipur on 24.01.2014. Reminder was also sent to the Government of Manipur on 27.02.2014 for furnishing para-wise comments. When para-wise comments were not received, in order to avoid further delay, the representation was processed for consideration and subsequently was rejected on 07.03.2014. Though some explanation had been given with reference to delay from 21.01.2014 to 27.01.2014, no explanation is given in the counter with regard to the period from 28.1.2014 to 6.3.2014. 6. In this connection, reference be made to the case of Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi (supra). In the said case, there was delay of 7 days in disposal of the representation and such delay was not explained. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the order of detention on the ground of delay in disposal of the representation. 6. In this connection, reference be made to the case of Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi (supra). In the said case, there was delay of 7 days in disposal of the representation and such delay was not explained. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the order of detention on the ground of delay in disposal of the representation. Learned counsel for the petitioner also cited some other decisions of the Apex Court in which delay of 7-10 days in disposal of the representation without explanation detention orders were set aside. Since the delay in disposal of the representation is admitted in the counter affidavit filed and no reason has been given, we allow the writ application and set aside the impugned order of detention dated 03.12.2013 at Annexure-A/1. Consequently, we further direct that the detenu namely, Shri Chingangbam Tarunkumar Singh @ Khoicha @ Ibomcha (49 yrs.) s/o. (L) Ch. Khelendro Singh of Nagamapal Singjubung Leirak, P.S. Imphal, District, Imphal West, Manipur be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required in any other case(s).