Judgment

KHANNA, J.:- An order was made by the District Magistrate Burdwan on February 10, 1971 under Section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act 1970 (President s Act No. 19 of 1970) for the detention of Abdus Sukkur "with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order . In pursuance of that order, Abdus Sukkur was arrested on September 24, 1971. Abdus Sukkur thereupon filed the present petition through Jail under Article 32 of the Constitution to challenge his detention.

2. Mr. Chibber argued the case amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner, while the State of West Bengal was represented by Mr. Chatterjee. After hearing the learned counsel on May 24, 1972 I ordered that, for reasons to be given later, the petitioner be set at liberty. I now proceed to set out those reasons.

3. The order for the detention of the petitioner, as mentioned earlier, was made by the District Magistrate on February 10, 1971. The petitioner, it is stated, was found to be absconding after the making of that order and he was arrested on September 24, 1971.He was then served with the order of detention along with the ground of detention together with vernacular translation thereof. In the meanwhile, on February 10, 1971 the District Magistrate sent report to the State government about the making of the detention order along with necessary particulars. The State Government approved the detention order of February 18, 1971. The case of the petitioner was placed on October 23, 1971 by the State Government before the Advisory Board. On October 28, 1971 the State Government received a representation from the petitioner against his detention. The said representation was considered by the State Government and was rejected on November 24, 1971. The representation was thereafter sent to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board, after considering the material placed before it and after hearing the petitioner in person, sent its report to the State Government on November 26, 1971. Opinion was expressed by the Advisory Board that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. The State Government confirmed the order for the detention of the petitioner on December 1, 1971.

4. It would appear from the above that though the representation made by the petitioner against his detention was received by the State Government on October 28, 1971, the said Government considered the representation and rejected it on November 24, 1971. There thus elapsed a period of 27 days between the receipt of the representation and its consideration and rejection by the State Government. As the above delay in considering and rejecting the representation had not been explained in the affidavit which was initially filed in opposition to the petition on behalf of the State Government, this Court adjourned, the matter on May 5, 1972 to enable the State Government to file an additional affidavit. When the case was taken up thereafter on May, 24, 1972 Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the State, stated that no additional affidavit was to be filed on behalf of the State. It would thus follow that the delay on the part of the State Government in considering the representation of the petitioner has remained unexplained. This unexplained delay, in my opinion, is sufficient to invalidate the detention of the petitioner.

5. According to Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution, when any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. The fact that earliest opportunity has to be afforded to the detenu for making a representation against the detention order necessarily implies that, as and when the representation is made, it should be dealt wi