ORDER : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Heard Mr. D. Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Syed Khader Masthan, learned Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents. 2. By filing this petition, the petitioner, who is the wife of Mude Chandra Naik @ Anji Naik, has called into question the order of detention dated 13.08.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent-Collector and District Magistrate, Chittoor, under Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, detaining the husband of the petitioner. 3. For the purpose of this case, a detailed narration of the events leading to issuance of the aforesaid order is not necessary to be dilated. 4. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent on 21.08.2020 and that the same was received by the office of the Collector on 27.08.2020. However, the representation came to be disposed of, after inordinate delay, only on 20.10.2020. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that plea taken by respondent No.2 in the affidavit that the representation was mis-sent to the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Special Enforcement Bureau, Chittoor, is without any basis and therefore, no credence can be placed on such a plea. It is submitted that on the ground of delay of 54 days in considering the representation, the order dated 13.08.2020 is liable to be set aside and the detenu is liable to be released from custody forthwith. 5. Mr. Syed Khader Masthan, learned Government Pleader, relies on the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the parties and perused the materials on record. 7. In the representation submitted by the petitioner, prayer was made by the petitioner to release her husband and it was stated that the detention of her husband is illegal. The postal receipt annexed to the petition goes to show that the representation was sent to the Collector on 21.08.2020 and track consignment report, which is annexed with the reply affidavit, demonstrates that the same was delivered to the office of the Collector, on 27.08.2020. 8. In the affidavit, it has not been explained who had allegedly mis-sent the representation to the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Special Enforcement Bureau, Chittoor. 8. In the affidavit, it has not been explained who had allegedly mis-sent the representation to the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Special Enforcement Bureau, Chittoor. 9. It is pertinent to note that a representation submitted by a detenu or on his behalf, in the context of preventive detention, relates to the liberty of the individual, which is a cherished right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and such representation has to be considered with promptitude. 10. The very statement in the affidavit gives an impression that the representation submitted by the petitioner had not been given the attention it deserved and the same was handled in a very casual manner, which cannot receive judicial imprimatur. There is no reasonable and plausible explanation for delay of 54 days in the eventual consideration of the representation. 11. In the case of K.M. Abdulla Kunhi and B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union of India and Others reported in (1991) 1 SCC 476 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that any unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that in view of unreasonable delay in considering the representation, the continued detention of the husband of the petitioner would be unconstitutional and illegal. 13. In view of the above discussion, we direct that the detenu shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. 14. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.