Summarize the following court judgment. Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 124 of 1988; (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) M.C. Kapadia	 Y.P. Dhingra	 B.K. Satija and S.S. Khanduja for the Petitioner. P.S. Poti and M.N. Shroff for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered: O R D E R After hearing learned counsel for the parties at quite some length	 we are satisfied that the failure on the part of the State Government to consider and decide the representation made to them by the petitioner against his detention by an order of detention dated 11th June	 1987 passed by the Commissioner of Police	 Surat City under sub section (2) of section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act	 1985	 makes his continued detention invalid and constitutionally impermissible. Apart from various other contentions	 Shri Kapadia	 learned counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that there was no explanation at all as to why the representation made by the petitioner to the State Government was not attended to and kept pending. In view of the wholly unexplained and unduly long delay rather the undeniable failure on the part of the State Government in the disposal of the representation renders the detention of the petitioner illegal. On the view that we take	 there is no need to deal with various contentions 830 raised by him on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel drew our attention to paragraph 8(e) of the Writ Petition where the petitioner avers inter alia that he had made a representation dated 15th July	 1987 to the Police Commissioner	 Surat City	 as also to the State Government but 'both the authorities had not considered the representation so made with utmost promptitude and that there was in fact no disposal of the said representation by the detaining authority as well as the State Government '. This assertion of his is sought to be met by the Commissioner of Police	 Surat City	 the detaining authority	 in the counter affidavit. It is averred in paragraph III(e) that he had received the representation on 21st July	 1987 and rejected it on the same day after due consideration. This is not a substantial compliance of the constitutional rights enshrined in article 22(5) of the Constitution. The petitioner had the right not only to make a representation to the detaining authority but also to the State Government which had the power of revocation. In view of this	 Shri P.S. Poti	 learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Government	 with his usual fairness	 rightly accepts that the denial in paragraph III(e) of the counter affidavit was not sufficient. The fact remains that the allegation made by the petitioner that he had made a further representation to the State Government has not been controverted. The State Government has disdained from filing any counter affidavit for obvious reasons. In Mohinuddin vs District Magistrate	 Beed & Ors.	 ; this Court had occasion to deal with this aspect. In that case	 there was wholly unexplained	 unduly long delay in the disposal of the representation by the State Government and it was held that further detention of the detenu was rendered invalid and constitutionally impermissible. The right of representation under article 22(5) is a valuable constitutional right and it is expected that the Government will ensure that the constitutional safeguards embodied in article 22(5) are strictly observed. It was observed by one of us (SEN	J.): "We say and we think it necessary to repeat that the gravity of the evil to the community resulting from anti social activities can never furnish an adequate reasons for invading the personal liberty of a citizen	 except in accordance with the procedure established by the Constitution and the laws. The history of personal liberty is largely the history of insistence on observance of the procedural safeguards. " It was next observed: 831 "It goes without saying that the constitutional right to make a representation guaranteed by article 22(5) must be taken to include by necessary implication the constitutional right to a proper consideration of the representation by the authority to whom it is made. The right of representation under article 22(5) is a valuable constitutional right and is not a mere formality. The representation made by the appellant addressed to the Chief Minister could not lie unattended to in the portals of the Secretariat while the Chief Minister was attending to other political affairs. " In view of the failure in the disposal of the representation by the State Government	 it must be held that the further detention of the petitioner is illegal and constitutionally impermissible. The writ petition must therefore succeed and is allowed. The order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police	 Surat City under sub section (2) of section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act	 1985 is accordingly quashed. We direct that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith. N.P.V. Petition allowed.

The petitioner	 who was detained under sub section (2) of section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act	 1985	 by an order dated 11th june	 1987 filed a writ petition in this Court	 alleging that both the detaining authority as also the State Government had not considered the representation	 dated 15th july	 1987 made by him	 with utmost promptitude and that	 in fact	 there was no disposal of the said representation by these authorities. In the counter affidavit filed by the detaining authority	 it was averred that the representation	 received by it on 21st July 1987 was duly considered and rejected the same day. Allowing the appeal	 ^ HELD: The right of representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is a valuable and constitutional right. The Government is expected to ensure that the constitutional safeguards embodied in Article 22(5) are strictly observed. [830E F] Mohinuddin vs District Magistrate	 Beed & Ors.	 ; relied on. In the instant case	 the petitioner had the right to make a representation not only to the detaining authority but also to the State Government which had the power to revocation. Although the representation made by him to the detaining authority has been considered and rejected	 this is not a substantial compliance of the 829 constitutional rights enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The allegation made by the petitioner that he made a further representation to the State Government had not been controverted. The State Government had disdained from filing any counter affidavit for obvious reasons. [830C E] The wholly unexplained and unduly long delay rather the undeniable failure on the part of the State Government in the disposal of the representation	 renders the detention of the petitioner iilegal. [829G H] The order of detention made under sub section (2) of section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act	 1985 is accordingly quashed. [831D]