JUDGMENT

A. K. PATNAIK, J. — This is habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the District Magistrate, Balasore on the 19th of Sep¬tember, 2001 detaining the petitioner in District Jail, Balasore.

2. The relevant facts for disposal of this writ petition briefly are that on 19.9.2001, the District Magistrate, Balasore after being satisfied that the detention of the petitioner was necessary to prevent from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, passed the impugned order of deten¬tion under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short “the Act”). Pursuant to the said order of detention, the petitioner was detained in the District Jail, Balasore. Thereafter by communication dated 23.9.2001, the Dis¬trict Magistrate, Balasore communicated the grounds of detention to the petitioner. In the said grounds of detention it was inter alia, stated that the petitioner has been indulging in anti-social activities in Balasore town for over a period of three years from 1999-2001 and this has become a matter of concern in the maintenance of public order within the municipal limits of Balasore town and in particular, in F.M. College area, Sahadevkhunta, Railway Station, Cinema bazar and Nuabazar, etc. It was further stated in the said grounds of detention that the activi¬ties of the petitioner had created terror in the hearts of common people of Balasore who out of fear do not dare to report against the said activities to the police. In the said grounds of deten¬tion the various anti-social activities of the petitioner during the years 1999, 2000 and 2001 has been detained. On 26.9.2001, the State Government approved the said order of detention in exercise of its power under Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act. The petitioner then submitted a representation dated 7.10.2001 addressed to the Chairman and Members of the Advisory Board constituted under the Act by the State Government through the District Magistrate, Balasore. The said representation was rejected by the State Government on 27.10.2001 and the said rejection by the State Government was communicated to the peti¬tioner by Memo No. 5621/C dated 29th October, 2001 of the Govern¬ment of Orissa, Home (Special Section) Department, Bhubaneswar. In the meanwhile the matter was referred to the Advisory Board constituted under the Act and the Advisory Board gave its opinion that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the peti¬tioner. By order dated 29th of October, 2001, the Government of Orissa, Home (Special Section) Department, confirmed the order of detention under Section 12(1) of the Act and directed that the petitioner shall continue in detention 12 (twelve) months in the District Jail, Balasore. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing his detention and for directing the opposite parties to release him from custody.

3. Mr. S. R. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the continued detention of the petitioner is liable to be quashed on the ground of delay on the part of the State Government to consider the representation of the petition¬er. He argued that while the representation of the petitioner against the order of detention was received by the State Government on 10.10.2001, it was rejected after eighteen days on 27.10.2001 and no explanation has been furnished by the State Government in its counter-affidavit for this delay of eighteen days in considering the representation of the petitioner. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, A.I.R. 1999 SC 684, in which the order of detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 was quashed on the ground of violation of the fundamental right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India as a delay of five days from 9.2.1998 to 14.2.1998 in considering the representation of the detenu had remained u