[Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Jaichandren, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 29.12.2012, made in Cr.M.P.No.3/2012[CS], quash the same, and to produce the petitioner's son, viz., N.Gunasekaran, S/o.Nallathambi, aged 37 years, who is confined in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and to set him at liberty.

2. The detenu, namely, N.Gunasekaran, S/o.Nallathambi, has been detained, under Section 3(2)(a) read with 3[1] of the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act No.7 of 1980), pursuant to the order passed by the 2nd respondent, in his proceedings, in Cr.M.P.No.03/2012[CS], dated 29.12.2012. In view of the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 29.12.2012, the detenu had been lodged in the Central Prison, Coimbatore.

3. Even though various grounds had been raised by the petitioner, in the present Habeas Corpus petition, while challenging the order of detention, passed by the 2nd respondent, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent, on 29.12.2012, is liable to be set aside, merely on the ground of delay in the disposal of the representation, dated 23.1.2013, made on behalf of the detenu.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also submitted that the representation, dated 23.1.2013, made on behalf of the detenu, had been received by the 1st respondent, on 29.1.2013. Remarks had been called for, from the Sponsoring Authority, on 30.1.2013. However, the remarks had been received only on 20.3.2012. As such, there has been an unexplained and undue delay of 50 days in receiving the remarks, relating to the representation sent on behalf of the detenu, dated 23.1.2013. After deducting the intervening Government holidays, there has been an actual delay of 36 days in calling for the remarks, relating to the representation sent on behalf of the detenu, dated 23.1.2013. It is also noted that after receiving the remarks, on 20.3.2013, the representation sent on behalf of the detenu, had been rejected only on 1.4.2013. After deducting the intervening Government holidays, there is an actual delay of 4 days in passing the orders on the representation of the detenu. Accordingly, there is an unexplained and undue delay between 30.1.2013 and 20.3.2013 and also between 20.3.2013 and 1.4.2013. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the actual delay of 40 days would vitiate the detention order passed by the detaining authority.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that there is no delay in considering the representation of the detenu, dated 23.1.2013. He had further submitted that the representation made on behalf of the detenu, had been disposed of, in an expeditious manner. The learned counsel had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in D.M.Nagaraja Vs. Government of Karnataka and others , reported in (2011) 10 SCC 215, to state that there is no obligation on the part of the Detaining Authority or the State Government to dispose of the representation made on behalf of the petitioner, before the order of detention is approved.

6. In a number of decisions, the Apex Court, as well as the various High Courts, have made it clear that the delay in disposing of the representation would vitiate the order of detention. Some of them are as follows:-

1. The Secretary to the Govt. of Tamilnadu, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Dept., Secretariat, Chennai-9.

2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruppur Dist.

3. The Additional Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, New Delhi.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court Madras