KAMLESHWAR Natb, J. - (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution India for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to |set the petitioner at liberty, the petitioner having been detained by an order dated 15-7-1987 contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition passed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 5 under Section 3 (2) (a), read with Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 2. The only point urged by the petitioner's learned Counsel is that there is an unexplained delay in disposal of the petitioner's representation by the Union of India, opposite party No. 2. 3. The petitioner submitted his representation dated 1-8-1987 to the Central Government which was received by the latter on 10-8-1987. On 11-8-1987 the Central Government called for the comments of the State Government. The comments of the State Government were received by the Central Government on 20-8-1987. The file containing a detailed examination of the petitioner's representation was submitted on 16-9-1987 for the orders of the competent authority, i. e. , the Joint Secretary to the Government of India who rejected the representation on 17-V-1987, "vide para 4 of the counter-affidavit on behalf of the Union of India. The question is whether the delay between 20-7- 1987 and 16-9-1987 invalidates the further detention of the petitioner. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there is no explanation of delay in the affidavit of the Union of India. Sri I. M. Quddusi, learned Counsel for the Union of India has requested for an opportunity to file a supplementary counter-affidavit to give the details of the process between 20-8- 1987 and 16-9-1987 in the concerned offices of the Union of India. The prayer is opposed and Sri Sushil Kumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner has already served out a period of almost 5 months of detention since 15-7-1987 while Section 13 of the Act provides for a maximum period of six months. He points out that he has received a copy of the counter-affidavit only on 9-12-19s7 which was filed today and that if the Union of India could take almost 5 months in submitting the counter-affidavit, there is every likelihood of the entire statutory period of detention expiring before the Union of India could file their supplementary counter affidavit. It is well known that a delay in disposal of representation has to be explained, the delay itself is not conclusive of the matter. It is the explanation of the delay which is relevant. The opposite parties therefore would have known that while making the averment in the counter-affidavit that after receipt of the comments of State Government on 20-8-1987, the representation and the file was submitted to the competent authority on 16-9-1987, they would be expect ed to explain the use of time between 20-8-1987 and 16-9-1987. It should have been possible to make the necessary statements in this regard in the counter-affidavit itself and any further postponement of the matter would be unfair. 5. The learned Counsel for the Union of India has referred to the case of Dwarika Prasad v. State of U. P. and others, 1984 ALJ 799 in which reference was made to the case of Satya Pal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1981 SC 2230 where 11 days' delay was not considered to vitiate detention. An observation was made that there was nothing in the case except unexplained delay on the part of the State Government and that by itself is not sufficient to invalidate the order of detention. The question here is not whether the order of detention is invalid. The question is whether further detention is invalid. Petitioner's learned Counsel has referred to the case of Moinuddin alias Moin Master v. District Magistrate Seed, 1987 SCC (Cri) 674, where unexplained delay in disposal of the representation was held to vitiate further detention. 6. Any number of cases can be cited for the proposition that an unex-plained delay of any substantial period vitiates further detention. Raghvendra Singh Superintendent of District Jail, Kanpur, AIR 1986 SC 356 is one of such decisions. Recently the delay was held to be fatal to the further detention in a decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4828 of 1987, Ajit Singh and others v. Adhikshak, Janpad Karagar, Aligarh. 7. On a consideration of all the matters we hold that the further deten tion of the petitioner is invalid and the petitioner deserves to be released forthwith. 8. The petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case. Officer will issue the release order immediately. Petition allowed. .;