JUDGMENT :

D.K. Upadhyaya, J.

1. These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been instituted by the detenue-Mohd. Sheebu @ Sheebu Chaudhary through his brother and next friend Mubarak Ahmad praying for issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus setting the detenue free from detention as directed by the District Magistrate, Sitapur by means of an order dated 08.03.2022 after quashing the same.

2. Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State-respondents and Ms. Pooja Singh, learned counsel representing the Union of India and perused the records available before us on this writ petition.

3. As observed above, the order impugned herein is dated 08.03.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Sitapur (hereinafter referred to 'the detention order') whereby the detenue has been ordered to be detained in preventive detention at District Jail, Sitapur in terms of the provisions contained in section 3(2) and 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'NSA').

4. Though various grounds impeaching the impugned detention order have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, he has emphasized primarily on the ground that there has been undue delay in disposal of the representation made by the detenue against the order of detention by the State Government inasmuch as that after receipt of the representation the District Magistrate failed to furnish the same to the State Government with due diligence, which is fatal and consequently vitiates the detention of the petitioner. It has, thus, been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that such delay on the part of the District Magistrate in furnishing the representation to the State Government has resulted in denial of the right of the petitioner to be afforded the earliest opportunity to make representation against the order to the appropriate Government as envisaged by Section 8 of the NSA and as mandated by Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. His submission, thus, is that the delay at the end of the District Magistrate in referring the representation to the State Government not only infringes right of the petitioner as available to him under section 8 of the NSA and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India but also that it is fatal to the extent that the order of detention is not tenable.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the State-respondents has submitted that sufficient explanation has been provided in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate for the alleged delay in furnishing the representation of the petitioner to the State Government and in view of the fact that the delay has appropriately been explained, the question of violation of the provisions of section 8 of NSA and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, in the facts of the present case, does not arise at all. His submission is that the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are, thus, highly misconceived and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel representing the Central Government/Union of India has submitted that so far as the Union of India is concerned, there has not been any delay in disposal of the representation made by the detenue against the detention order; neither is there any such pleadings in the writ petition. She has, thus, argued that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. We have consciously considered the competing submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties. The issue, which, in the facts of the case and also on the basis of the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, arises for our consideration is as to whether the delay at the end of the District Magistrate in furnishing the representation made by the detenue against the detention order to the State Government is unexplained and reflects callousness and indi