JUDGMENT
Ramanujulu Naidu, J.
1. This is a petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate order or direction in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondent, his men or agents from arresting or detaining the petitioner’s husband Mr. G. C. M. Benerjee, s/o Krishnaiah, a normal resident of the house bearing No. 32/2/7.A, Praja Sakthi Nagar, Vijayawada, in any manner, in connection with the incident that took place on 4-8-1989 at the Inland Container Depot (I.C.D.), Guntur.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is alleged that the incident or occurrence took place on 4-8-1989, that the petitioner’s husband and some others were apprehended and interrogated, that the entire material in relation to the occurrence was collected by the Customs authorities by 7-8-1989 itself, that, however, until 7-1-90 no order of detention was passed against the petitioner’s husband and that the enormous delay of five months in passing the detention order per se renders the order of detention illegal. Several other grounds were also urged in the affidavit in support of the writ petition.
3. We admitted the writ petition on 23-1-1990 and as the petitioner complained that there was imminent threat to the liberty of her husband, we considered it just to grant an injunction pending disposal of the writ petition restraining the respondent, or his men or agents from in any way arresting or detaining the petitioner’s husband.
4. Sri Koti Reddy, Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India took notice on behalf of the respondent and prayed for three weeks’ time for filing a counter. When the writ petition was listed before us on 13-2-1990, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India again prayed for two more weeks’ time for filing a counter on behalf of the respondent. We thereupon passed the following order :
“Earlier three weeks’ time was granted on 23-1-1990 for counter of the respondent. We, therefore, reluctantly adjourn the writ petition by two more weeks, making it very clear to the Standing Counsel that under no circumstances further adjournments will be granted.”
Accordingly the writ petition as later listed before us on 28-2-1990, and again Sri Koti Reddy, the Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India prayed for two more weeks’ time for filing a counter and we passed the following order :
“We must, however, observe that even earlier we reluctantly granted two weeks’ time for filing counter of the respondent, making it very clear to the Standing Counsel for the Central Government that no further adjournment will be granted.
However, as the implementation of the impugned order is stayed by this Court, we grant two more weeks’ time to Standing Counsel for filing counter of the respondent, as a last chance”.
5. Even today, the position is the same. No counter-affidavit of the respondent has been filed. The learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India again prays for further time for filing a counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent. We must, however, observe that the request made by the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent is most unreasonable. In fact, in Mohd. Ibrahim Mohd. Sasin v. State of Maharashtra, 1987 SCC (Cri) 630, it was held by the Supreme Court that the inaction by the State Government of Maharashtra to defend its order of detention passed under the National Security Act despite two adjournments granted by the Court would result in invalidation of the order of detention. Their Lordships held in no unmistakable language that, further detention of the petitioner would be unconstitutional.
6. It may be noted that in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is alleged that either in the last week of December, 1989 or in the first week of January, 1990, the respondent made an order of detention against the petitioner’s husband. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court on 22-1-1990. In the first instance, three weeks’ time was granted to the respondent, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India, to file a counter. At the request of the Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India, another four weeks’ time in two spells was granted to the respondent. Till today, no interest was evinced by the respondent to defend his action. This would necessarily result in invalidation of the impugned order of detention.
7. We, therefore, quash the order of detention passed by the respondent against the petitioner’s husband and also issue a writ of Mandamus against the respondent forbearing him or his men or agents from in any way arresting or detaining the petitioner’s husband, Mr. G. C. M. Benerjee, son of Krishnaiah, a normal resident of Dr. No. 32/2/7.A, Prajashkti Nagar, Vijaywada in connection with the incident that took place on 4-8-1989 at the Inland Container Depot (I.C.D.), Guntur.
8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
9. Petition allowed.