- (1.) V. M. Sahai and S. P. Mehrotra, JJ. We have heard Sri Swetashwa Agar wal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ali Murtaza, learned AGA for the State Government and Sri M. C. Tripathi, Advo cate, appearing for the Central Govern ment.
(2.) THE respondents have filed counter-affidavit to which rejoinder-affidavit has been filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that there is unexplained delay in deciding the representation of the peti tioner by the Central Government, there fore, the detention order becomes illegal and is liable to be quashed. We have gone through the counter-affidavit filed by the Central Gov ernment. The representation dated 13. 11. 2007 was sent by the State Govern ment to the Central Government, which was received at the concerned desk of the Ministry of Home Affairs on 21. 11. 2007 along with the letter of the District Magis trate dated 20. 11. 2007. After the represen tation was received by the Central Govern ment on 21. 11. 2007, till 28. 11. 2007, these is no explanation submitted on behalf of the Central Government as to why the delay was caused, what the Central Government was doing and why the representation of the petitioner was not attended to as soon "as may be it was received as laid down in various decisions with reference to the words "as soon as may be" occurring in Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. There is, thus, an unexplained delay of seven days.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Central Government has informed the Court that 24. 11. 2007 was Saturday and 25. 11. 2007 was Sunday, therefore, the office was closed. Apart from these two days, there is no explanation for 22nd and 23rd Novem ber, 2007 and for 26th, 27th and 28th No vember, 2007. The delay for these five days is unexplained. The Apex Court in Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, 1999 (38) ACC 312 (SC) has referred to the provisions of Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, and has held that unexplained delay of five days was fatal and the detention order would be bad in law and contrary to the Constitutional obligation on the Central Government to consider and decide the representation of the detenu without any delay.;