Judgment

KHANNA, J.:- The District Magistrate of 24 Paraganas made an order on August 24, 1971 that Atiar Rehman petitioner be detained under S. 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971(Act 26 of 1971) "with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order". The detention order was approved by the Government of West Bengal on September 3, 1971. In pursuance of the detention order, the petitioner, who was earlier found to be absconding, was arrested on September 20, 1971. The petitioner thereafter fled the present petition through jail for issuing a writ of habeas corpus.

2. The petition was opposed by the State of West Bengal and the affidavit of Shri D. Mukhopadhya, District Magistrate of 24-Parganas was filed in opposition to the petition.

3. We have heard Mr. Ram Panjvani, who has argued the case amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. P. K. Chakravarty on behalf of the respondent State, and are of the opinion that the detention of the petitioner is not in accordance with law as there has been inordinate delay on the part of the State Government in disposing of the petitioner s representation against his detention.

4. The petitioner sent representation against the detention from the jail and the said representation was received by the State Government on October 25, 1971. The State Government considered the representation and rejected it on November 18, 1971.There thus elapsed a period of 24 days between the receipt of representation and its disposal by the State Government The said Government has tried to explain the delay in the disposal of representation by ascribing it partly to the go-slow movement of the State Government employees and partly to the sudden increase in volume of work on account of increased number of detention cases. In support of this plea the State Government has filed the affidavit of Shri D. Mukhopadhya. The affidavit, however, reveals that Shri Mukhopadhya had no personal knowledge of the go-slow movement or the sudden increase in volume of work in respect of detention cases. According to the affidavit of Shri Mukhopadhya, he got this information from the Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) Department of the State Government of West Bengal. It is, however, not clear as to why affidavit of the Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) Department of the Government of West Bengal or someone else who had personal knowledge of the facts which led to the delay in disposal of representation has not been filed to explain the delay. The present is not a case wherein Shri Mukhopadhya gave affidavit regarding the delay on the basis of information derived from records kept in the office. On the contrary, the affidavit shows that the averments about the delay in the disposal of representation were based upon what Shri Mukhopadhya had heard from someone else. The affidavit is also silent on the point of time as to when there was go-slow movement and whether the same synchronised with the time during which representation was pending with the State Government. We, therefore, are of the opinion that no satisfactory material has been brought on the record to justify the delay in the disposal of the petitioner s representation.

5. It is well established that inordinate delay in the disposal of the detenu s representation introduces an infirmity in his detention. 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 postulates that as and when the representation is made, it should be dealt with promptly