(1) THIS appeal arises out of a detention order passed by the State Government in exercise of power conferred by Ss. (2 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. By this order the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, ordered the detention of Ravi alias Ravindra son of Ishwarsingh Paigawar on the ground that his conduct was prejudicial to public order. The grounds of detention of even date referred to two specific instances, one of 24/09/1992 in regard to an offence registered under S. 143, 147, 353 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution for which was pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, court No. 4, Nagpur, under CC No. R. 261/92, dated 23/10/1992. The second instance related to an incident which occurred on 23/01/1993 in regard to which an offence was registered under S. 186, 187, 353, 506(B), 332 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code which was then under investigation. On the basis of these two instances the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, concluded that the conduct of detenu was prejudicial to public order.

(2) IMMEDIATELY after the detention order was passed and the detenu was taken in custody, he made a representation dated 12/02/1993, addressed to the central government. This representation was rejected on 7/04/1993. Two contentions were urged in the High court, namely, (1 that the grounds of detention, which referred to two specific instances, did not justify the conclusion that the detenu was engaged in conduct prejudicial to public order and (2 there was an inordinate delay in dealing with his representation. The High court, dealing with the second contention in regard to the delay, points out in paragraph 9 of its judgment that the first activity of the central government was to send a wireless message to the State government on 4/03/1993 seeking some details. There is no indication as to how the representation was dealt with between 12/02/1993 and 4/03/1993. If, as conjectured by the learned Additional Solicitor General, the representation though dated 12/02/1993 was actually handed over late for despatch to the Central Government, that fact should have been specifically pleaded in the counter expected to be filed by the central government as well as by the State Government. It may be mentioned that since the central government did not file any counter-affidavit in the Habeas Corpus proceeding before the High Court this delay remained unexplained. Thereafter it appears that in response to the wireless message dated 4/03/1993, the State government sent its reply on 6/03/1993; yet it took the central government over a month to dispose of the representation. The learned Additional Solicitor General tried to explain this delay by saying that further information was received by the State Government on 18/03/1993. In this connection our attention was drawn by the learned Additional Solicitor General to the counter filed on behalf of the State government wherein the chronology of events was set out. Nowhere we find in that chronology that the central government had sought additional information from the State government. What appears from the chronology is that the Advisory Board took a decision on 18/03/1993, and that information was conveyed to the central government. The central government has not filed any counter to state that it was not satisfied with the reply sent on 6/03/1993 and had, therefore, sought further information on any specific issue in connection with the detention. The learned Additional Solicitor General tried to satisfy us that between 18/03/1993 and 7/04/1993, there were only nine working days and, therefore, there was no delay but the learned Additional Solicitor General overlooks the fact that the central government has failed to explain the delay between 6/03/1993 and Mar 18/03/1993. An effort was made by the learned Additional Solicitor General to persuade us to adjourn the matter to enable the central government to produce the file for our perusal.