JUDGMENT

Special Leave granted.

The appellant was detained under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. The detaining authority found on subjective satisfaction, on the material placed before it, that the appellant is a desperate Goonda indulging in violent and terrorising activities at village Pisarve and its surrounding areas and that the appellant has created a reign of terror among the people in the village and the residents in the neighbourhood are apprehending danger to their lives and that they were constantly living under a shadow of fear. Thereby the public order has been affected. Instances in that regard were enumerated. Accordingly, the order of detention was passed and served it on the appellant. The grounds on which the subjective satisfaction was reached was communicated within the statutory period.

2. After the representation was rejected by the Board the appellant made a representation to the Central Government on July 6, 1991. It was received by the Central Government on July 15, 1991. The Central Government sought information from the State Government through their wireless message dated July 16, 1991. The State Government in turn sought the information from the detaining authority on July 24, 1991; and the comments and the material was forwarded by the detaining authority to the State Government on receipt whereof the State Government submitted the para wise comments to the Central Government on July 13, 1991. The Central Government received the information on August 6, 1991. The order was passed by the Central Government rejecting the appellants representation on August 24, 1991 and was duly communicated on August 27, 1991.

3. Calling in question the order the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court. Apart from other grounds, one of the contentions raised in the High Court was that the delay in disposal of the representation by the Central Government offend his rights under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment dated September 18, 1991 rejected the contention. Thus, this appeal.

4. When the Special Leave Petition came up for consideration this Court directed the Central Government to keep the record available and that the matter would be disposed of at the notice stage itself. Thus now today, apart from the counter-affidavit filed by the detaining authority, the records of the Central Government are also made available by the learned Additional Solicitor General, Shri Altaf Ahmad. We have perused the records as well.

5. Shri Khanwilkar, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in the counter affidavit filed by the Central Government no explanation was given for the delay caused from August 6, 1991 till August 24, 1991, the date on which the appellants representation was rejected by the Central Government. Unless satisfactory explanations is given by the Central Government for the delay of 18 days caused in disposal of the representation, the detenu is entitled to be released as his representation was unduly delayed. Wanton ]aches on the part of the Central Government in disposal of the representation offend his right to freedom guaranteed under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution.

6. It is settled law that right to representation under Art, 22(5) of the Constitution includes right to expeditious disposal not only by the State Government under the relevant provision of the statute, but also by the Central Government. But in each case it is one of fact to be ascertained whether the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, has caused delay due to negligence, callous inaction, avoidable red tapism and undue protection by the authorities concerned. As stated earlier, expedition is the rule and delay defeats mandate of Art. 22(5). So the authority is obligated to explain the delay by either filing a counter affidavit by the officer concerned on behalf of the appropriate Government or by producing the record in dealing with the case. Un