H. N. SETH, J, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner Faishal Malik questions the validity of his detention under Section 3 of the National Security Act authorised by the District Magistrate, Moradabad vide his order dated 9. 8. 1983 inter alia on the ground that petitioners detention has been rendered illegal for non-compliance of the provisions contained in Section 10 of the National Security Act. ( 2 ) UNDISPUTED acts giving rise to this petition are that the order for petitioners detention was, after being passed on 9. 8. 1983, served upon him on the same date when he was still in jail custody in connection with the cases under Sections 395/397 Indian Penal Code. The petitioner submitted his representation to the State Government through the Superintendent of Jail on 19th August, 1983. The representation was eventually received by the State Government alongwith the District Magistrates report dated 1st September, 1983. In the mean time the State Government had already referred the case of the petitioner for consideration by the Advisory Board on 25th August, 1983. However, after receiving the representation of the petitioner on 2nd September, 1983 it placed that representation before the Advisory Board on 3rd September, 1983. Eventually the Advisory Board approved the detention of the petitioner and the State Government also after rejecting the petitioners representation affirmed his detention vide order dated 3-10-1983. ( 3 ) SECTION 10 of the National Security Act obliges the appropriate Government to within three weeks from the date of detention of a person, place before the Advisory Board, constituted under Section 9, the grounds on which the order has been made and the representation, if any, made by the person affected by the order. It has been the consistent view in this Court that the provisions contained in Section 10 of the National Security Act are mandatory and any non-compliance thereof renders the detention of a person detained under the National Security Act illegal. Facts mentioned by us above clearly indicate that the petitioner was detained on 9th August, 1983. It has been the consistent view in this Court that the provisions contained in Section 10 of the National Security Act are mandatory and any non-compliance thereof renders the detention of a person detained under the National Security Act illegal. Facts mentioned by us above clearly indicate that the petitioner was detained on 9th August, 1983. His representation which is dated 19th August, 1983 was placed before the Advisory Board only on 3rd September, 1983 beyond the period of three weeks stipulated by Section 10 of the Act and as such the respondents have violated the provisions of Section 10 of the National Security Act, rendering petitioners detention illegal. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the respondents an attempt hag been made in the counter affidavit to explain the delay in forwarding the representation to the State Government on the ground that the District Magistrate had to obtain reports from the police and the police could not submit the report prior to 1st September, 1983. Be that as it may, the respondents could have placed the representation dated 19th August, 1983 before 30th August, 1983, the date on which the period of three weeks was going to expire. For this purpose it was not necessary for them to wait for the reports from the police officers. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents then invited our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raisuddin Babu Tamchi v. The State of U. P. and another1 and contended that Don-compliance with the provisions of Section 10 of the National Security Act in submitting the representation to the Advisory Board beyond the period of three weeks would not render the detention of a detenu invalid. We are unable to accept the submission made by the learned Government Advocate. In Raisuddins case what was submitted before the Supreme Court was that under Section 10 of the National Security Act the State Government was obliged to obtain a decision from the Advisory Board within three weeks of the date of the detention. We are unable to accept the submission made by the learned Government Advocate. In Raisuddins case what was submitted before the Supreme Court was that under Section 10 of the National Security Act the State Government was obliged to obtain a decision from the Advisory Board within three weeks of the date of the detention. It is this argument which was repelled by the Supreme Court, when it observed that under Section 10 of the act a duty was cast on the appropriate Government to place before the Advisory Board, constituted under Section 9 within three weeks from the date of detention the grounds on which the order of the detention has been made and the representation, if any, made by the person affected by the order. Under the terms of the Section a duty is cast on the appropriate Government to forward to the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9, within three weeks from the date of detention the papers pertaining to the detention of the detenu constituting the grounds on which the order was made and the representation, if any, made by the person affected by the order. Even though in that case the representation by the detenu had been made within the period of three weeks and it was actually placed before the Advisory Board after expiry of three weeks from the date of detention, but the Supreme Court did not go into this question and express any opinion in respect of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act in that regard. In the circumstances we are unable to read the said decision of the Supreme Court as laying down that non-compliance of the provisions of Section 10 of the National Security Act, in submitting the representation made by the detenu to the Advisory Board within the specified period, does not render the detention of a detenu invalid. ( 6 ) IN the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed not to keep the petitioner under detention in pursuance of the order under Section 3 of the National Security Act passed by the District Magistrate, Moradabad on 9th August, 1983 as approved by the Advisory Board and affirmed by the State Government. ( 6 ) IN the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed not to keep the petitioner under detention in pursuance of the order under Section 3 of the National Security Act passed by the District Magistrate, Moradabad on 9th August, 1983 as approved by the Advisory Board and affirmed by the State Government. It is made clear that if petitioners detention is required under some other authority of law, the order passed by us to-day shall not entitle him to be physically released. .