( 1 ) IN this petition, for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus the validity of detention of Dr. M. V. Ramana Reddy is called in question. Dr. M. V. Ramana Reddy was detained under the order dt. 16-6-1985 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Cuddapah under S. 3 (2) of the National Security Act 1980. The present writ petition was filed on 25-6-1985. In this writ petition, the constitutional validity of S. 5a of the Act was challenged as violative of Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution. Subsequently, the petitioner filed WPMP 9822/1985, impleading the Union of India as the 4th respondent in the writ petition, which was ordered and the Union of India was impleaded as prayed for. The Union of India was impleaded in view of the fact that the constitutional validity of a Section in the Central Act was called in question. The Union of India has filed a counter-affidavit, and is represented by the learned Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government, Sri K. Nagaraja Rao.

( 2 ) WE examined the grounds of detention and found that out of the six grounds stated in the grounds of detention, ground No. 1 is irrelevant; ground No. 5 is remote and ground No. 6 is vague. It is, however, not necessary for us to state the reasons for the above opinion of ours, because we are allowing this writ petition on a different ground altogether. We are only stating the above facts more by way of narration. Inasmuch as out of the six grounds, three grounds were found to be bad, we found it necessary to go into the question of constitutional validity of S. 5a. After the matter was argued at length and practically at the close of the arguments, it was discovered that there was delay on the part of the Government in considering and disposing of the detenus representation. Accordingly, we made an order on 7/08/1985 to the following effect :- During the course of hearing of this matter, it came to light that while the representation of the detenu against the detention was made on 20/06/1985 the Government rejected the same on 18-7-1985. The counsel for the petitioner contends inter alia that this delay in considering the petitioners representation by itself vitiates the order of detention. The learned Additional Advocate-General says that since this point was not raised in the writ petition there was no occasion or opportunity for the respondents to explain the circumstances in which the Government took about twenty eight days for disposing of the petitioners representation. Mr. Padmanabha Reddy counters this objection saying that the order of approval of the Government was not communicated to the detenu and therefore, he could not have raised this contention earlier. Be that as it may, since the matter affects the liberty of a citizen, we direct the Government to file a counter-affidavit explaining the reasons for which it took twenty eight days for disposing of the petitioners representation. The counter-affidavit shall be filed on Monday Post on Monday".

( 3 ) IN pursuance of the above order, the learned Addl. Advocate General has today filed an additional counter affidavit, sworn to by the Secretary (Political) to Government, General Administration (General. A) Dept. , Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, seeking to explain the delay in disposing of the detenus representation. The relevant file is also placed before us. We have heard the parties again today, on this question. We are satisfied that there has been undue and unexplained delay in considering the detenus representation, which itself is a violation of the guarantee contained in Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution and that on this ground alone, this writ petition is liable to be allowed. We shall now proceed to state the facts relevant to the above question.

( 4 ) THE order of detention is dt. 16-6-1985. The grounds of detention were served upon the detenu along with the order on detention. The detenu submitted his representation addressed to the Chief Secretary