Judgment

DUA, J. :- Rashid Sk., petitioner has approached this Court through jail for a writ of habeas corpus under Art. 32 of the Constitution.

2. Pursuant to the detention order dated January 3, 1972 made by the District Magistrate, Burdwan under S. 3 (1) and (2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971 (hereinafter called the Act), the petitioner was arrested on January 5, 1972 and detained with a view to "preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community". The grounds of detention were duly served on him at the time of his arrest. The report regarding the detention order had also been duly sent on January 3, 1972 to the State Government, which approved the order of detention on January 6, 1972. The same day the State Government reported that fact to the Central Government in compliance with S. 3 (4) of the Act. The petitioner s case was placed before the Advisory Board on February 1, 1972, and the Board submitted its report on March 4, 1972. The representation made by the petitioner was received by the Government on February 3, 1972 but the same was considered by it on March 1, 1972. The State Government confirmed the order of detention on March 15, 1972 : this confirmation was communicated to the petitioner on March 16, 1972.

3. According to the petitioner he had been arrested on December 11, 1971 and kept in police station Hirapur for 12 days whereafter he was transferred to Koiunapur police station where he was kept for 13 days. On January 5, 1972 the detention order under the Act was served on him and he was thereafter detained in Burdwan District Jail. We do not attach any importance to the petitioner s averment that he had been arrested in December, 1971 in connection with some other cases for the simple reason that he was admittedly detained under the impugned detention order with effect from January 5, 1972. His earlier arrest in connection with some other cases cannot render his detention under the order dated January 3, 1972 illegal, if otherwise it does not suffer from any infirmity.

4. The first challenge to the petitioner s detention pressed by the learned counsel appearing as amicus curiae on his behalf relates to the delay on the part of the State Government in considering the petitioner s representation. The explanation for the delay between February 3, 1972 and March 1, 1972 offered by the State of West Bengal in its counter-affidavit reads :

"In this connection I further state that the said representation of the detenu-petitioner could not be considered by the State Government earlier, due to sudden and abrupt increase in volume of detention cases under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, as there was spate of anti-social activities during that time within the State by the Naxalites and other political extremists. Due to aforesaid reason there was great pressure of work and movement of the files were very much delayed and the records in the office were not regularly available. It appears that there was about 27 days delay in considering the said representation of the petitioner. I further state that delay was unintentional and for reasons stated above it was beyond control of the State Government and I submit that the said delay may be condoned by this Hon ble Court."

The question requiring consideration by this Court is the effect of this explanation for the delay on the part of the State Government in considering the petitioner s representation, on the validity of his detention. It is undoubtedly true that neither the Constitution nor the Act expressly provides for consideration of a detenu s representation by the State Government within any specified period of time. The constitutional requirement of expeditious consideration of the petitioner s representation by the State Government has, however, been spelt out by this Court from cl. (5) of Art. 22 of the Constitution. This clause reads :

"22 (5) When any person is