(1) BY this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validity of his continued detention under an order passed by respondent 1 the District Magistrate. Meerut dated 21/07/1987 under S. 3(2 of the National Security Act, 1980, on being satisfied that it was necessary to do so to prevent him from his prejudicial activities affecting maintenance of public order.

(2) ON the view that we take, it is not necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the impugned order pertains to maintenance of public order or merely relates to law and order. While the petitioner was detained in central Jail, Meerut, he handed over a representation addressed to the State government of Uttar Pradesh, to the Jail Superintendent with an endorsement forwarding a copy thereof to the secretary to the government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Internal Security Section), North Block, New Delhi. The writ petition was filed in this court on September 7, 198-7 question- ing the validity of the impugned order on various grounds. It has been averred in paragraph 12 that the said representation to the State Government with the request that a copy thereof be forwarded to the central government, was made on 3/08/1987. The last page of the representation annexed to the writ petition mentions the date as 3/08/1987 but it is stated in the counter-affidavit of the District Magistrate, respondent 1 that the representation was undated and was received from the Superintendent on 17/08/1987 and that a copy thereof was also sent to the central government through the State government. There was also a specific ground taken that there was a failure on the part of the central government to deal with the representation so far and therefore his prolonged detention was bad in law. On 15/09/1987 this court issued a rule nisi. On 23/09/1987 the court in view of the averment in paragraph 12 as aforesaid, allowed the petitioner to implead the Union of India as party-respondent. The representation marked to the Central Government was not apparently attended to till 12/10/1987. No doubt, the District Magistrate in the counter-affidavit has stated that the copy of the representation was forwarded to the Central Government through the State government, but he does not disclose the date when this was done. From paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit sworn by Shiv Basant, Deputy secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, government of India, New Delhi it is however revealed that the said representation was received by the central government in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 10/10/1987 through the State Government of Uttar Pradesh vide their letter dated 9/10/1987. It is further disclosed that the representation was immediately processed for consideration and the Ministry of Home Affairs took a decision on 16/10/1987 to reject the representation. It is also stated that the decision so taken was communicated to all concerned on 19/10/1987 through a wireless message.

(3) FROM a narration of events it is apparent that there was no delay on the part of the central government in considering the representation made by the petitioner. The fact however remains that the representation addressed to the State government by the petitioner and marked to the central government .remained unattended to till 19/10/1987. Presumably, the copy of the representation was lying at the Secretariat at Lucknow. It is now accepted in the counteraffidavit sworn by one Dharam Raj Singh, Desk Clerk, Home Department, government of Uttar Pradesh that an undated representation of the petitioner was received by the Superintendent, District Jail, Meerut on 17/08/1987, and that the said representation along with the comments of the District Magistrate, Meerut was received by the State government on 18/08/1987. He states that the representation was duly considered by the State government and rejected on 20/08/1987 and an intimation to that effect was communicated to