- (1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S. Farman Ahmad Naqvi, learned A. G. A. and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh for the respondents.
(2.) THIS petition has been filed chal lenging the order dated 18th May, 1998 passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 3 (2) of National Security Act, 1980, under which the petitioner has been detained. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also challenged the continued detention of the petitioner as illegal in view of inor dinate and unexplained delay in deciding the representation of the petitioner by the Central Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted; that representation of the petitioner dated 8th June, 1998 was admit tedly received by Central Government on 15th June, 1998 through District Magistrate, Mordabad. On this repre sentation, certain information was re quired from the State Government by a crash wireless message dated 18th June, 1998 and requisite information was received by Central Government on 6th July, 1998. After receiving the informa tion, the representation was processed and considered by various authorities and finally it was put up before the Home Minister on 10th July, 1998. The repre sentation was however, rejected on 2nd August, 1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in counter affidavit, there no explanation for this long delay and continued detention of the petitioner has been rendered illegal and he is entitled to be released from detention. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent has not dis puted the dates but has submitted that in paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit, ex planation has been given that 8th, 11th, 12th, 18th, 19th, 25th and 26th July, 1998 land 1st and 2nd August, 1998 were holidays and if this period of nine days is excluded the delay remains only of 13 days which cannot be said to be unreasonable and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
(3.) WE have considered the submis sion of the leaned counsel for the parties. In paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit filed by Bina Prasad, it has been stated that requisite information was received on 6th July, 1998 and after processing the representation in the light of the information received, with the comments of the authorities, it was put up before Home Minister on 10th July, 1998. It was rejected on 2nd August, 1998. It cannot be disputed that the representation reached before Home Minister with all complete materials and comments and it could be decided within a day or two. However, Home Minister took 22 days in deciding the representation. Even if explanation given in paragraph 9 that some days were holidays and representation could not be decided, is accepted,' there remains delay of 13 days for which there is no explana tion. It may also be noticed that the representation was decided on 2nd August, 1998 which, it is claimed was a holiday. This fact shows that the explanation of delay based on intermittent holidays fall ing in between, is not justified. Even if the explanation, is accepted, delay of about 13 days, remains unexplained, which rendered petitioner's detention illegal. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajam-mal v. State of Tamilnadu and others, JT 1998 (8) SC 598 has held that if there is no explanation for even a short delay, the continued detention is rendered illegal. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case directed the release of the detenue from detention on account of four days delay, which was found unexplained. The present case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned above. For the reason stated above, this petition is allowed, as continued detention of the petitioner has been found illegal, the respondents are directed to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in any other case. Petition allowed. .;