- (1.) COUNTER-affidavits filed by the sponsoring authorities as well as State Government has been brought on record.
(2.) BY means of present writ petition the order of the State Government, dated 30-12-1999 for detention of the petitioner under Section 3 (1) of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 has been challenged. We do not intend to dwell into the ground of detention, for the simple reason that this writ petition can be decided on another question. The petitioner submitted his rep resentation to the State Government on 28-1-2000 which was received to the State Government on 12-2-2000. On 29-2-2000, the State Government rejected the repre sentation. There is no explanation for the delay of 14 days in the receipt of the repre sentation. There exists no justification as to why the representation which was preferred on 28-1 -2000 was not received by the State Government within 2 or 3 days. ' No explanation has been given in the counter- affidavit as to why the State Government took 17 days in the disposal of the representation. A person who has been detained without trial has only one opportunity i. e. to represent his case to the Government under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India which mandates that it should be disposed of as soon as possible. If the rep resentation is allowed to be dusted in the almirah or on the table of the authorities concerned, the constitutional mandate as provided under Article 22 (5) of the Con stitution of India would be frustrated. Only for that reason this petition deserves to be succeed. This writ petition is accord ingly allowed. The detention order dated 30-12-1999 (Annexure 1 to the writ peti tion) passed by the State Government is quashed. The petitioner shall be release forthwith unless not wanted in any other case. Petition allowed. .;