The right to make a representation for revocation of a detention order is a constitutional right and the representation must be considered without any inordinate delay, expeditiously and within reasonable time depending on the facts of each case.

( 1 ) SUSHIL Kumar, the petitioner, has been detained under Section 3 (2) of the National Security act by an order of the District Magistrate, Allahabad, dated 3-11-81. He preferred an earlier habeas Corpus Petition No. 15165 of 1981 assailing such detention. It was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 12-4-1982 and his detention was upheld. Thereafter this second habeas corpus petition has been preferred on 26-7-1982. While admitting this petition, the Court vide its order dated 30-7-1982 expressly observed that this second petition will be considered strictly on the ground which have been raised for the first time and are not covered by the petition already decided and rejected by the Court

( 2 ) ONE of the new points raised in this petition is that the representation for revocation of the detention order made by the petitioner to the State Government and the Union of India on 2-7-1982 have not been decided so far and that vitiates the continued detention of the detenu. During arguments we have been addressed only on the point of non-consideration of detenus representation by the Central Government.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the Slate Government a counter-affidavit of Sri Harish Chandra Gupta, District magistrate, Allahabad, has been filed. In para 10 of that counter-affidavit, it has been stated that as the record of the case concerning Sushil Kumar was summoned by the Government Advocate during the pendency of the first habeas corpus petition and got misplaced there and could be searched out only on 30th July, 1982, the District Magistrate after making relevant entries in that file forwarded the representation for revocation (hereinafter referred to as the representation) to the State Government on 30th July, 1982, and thereafter the representation was again received by the District Magistrate from the State Government on 6-8-1982 with a covering letter of 2-8-1982 calling for his comments. It was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, allahabad, for his comments, and the District Magistrate received it back on 17-8-1982 and together with the comments sent the representation to the State Government again on 18-8-1982 and the State Government by teleprinter message dated 20-8-1982 has intimated that the representation was rejected. Another counter-affidavit of Sri O. P. Tewari, an Upper Division assistant in the Confidential Section 6 of the U. P. Secretariat, Lucknow, has also been filed on behalf of the State Government. In para 6 of this counter-affidavit he has stated that the aforesaid representation dated 2-7-1982 was received by the State Government on 30-7-1982 with a covering letter of the District Magistrate. The copy of the representation addressed to the Prime minister was forwarded to the Government of India on 2-8-1982. The State Government considered it necessary 1o obtain the comments of the District Magistrate, Allahabad, and, consequently, the District Magistrate was addressed on 2-8-1982 to give his comments which were sent by the District Magistrate on 18-8-1982 and received by the State Government on 19-8-1982, and after scrutiny at various channels it was rejected on 25-8-1982, which was communicated to the District Magistrate, Allahabad, by means of a radiogram dated 26-8-1982 for intimation to the detenu as well.

( 4 ) IT has also been stated in para 5 of the counter-affidavit of Sri Tewari that as by its judgment in the previous habeas corpus petition the Court held the detention of the detenu to be operative from 7-11-81. accepting such date the State Government has modified its earlier order as to lay down that instead of 20-11-82 the detention order shall remain in force up to 6-11-82, i. e. the period of one year.

( 5 ) ON 30-7-1982, when this petition was admitted, Sri Anshuman Singh, standing counsel for the union of India accepted the notice on behalf of the Union of India. He prayed for and was granted four weeks time for filing a counter-affidavit. Further, one weeks ti