Manisana, J - By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of detention of Shri lal shram Manaobi @ Inaobi @ Thembi under the National Security Act. 2. The detention order was passed by the District Magis­trate on 18.6.86. The State Government of Manipur approved the detention order. Upon the report of the advisory Board the Government of Manipur passed an order dated 25.7.86 con­firming the detention and fixing the period of detention for 12 months from the date of the detention. 3. Mr. L. Narendra Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the State Government without giving any reason has fixed the maximum period of detention for 12 months and as such, there was non-application of mind and the detention is illegal. 4. Under Section 12 of the National Security Act, in any case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is, in its opinion, sufficient cause for the detention of a person the appropriate Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit. Under Section 13 maximum period of deten­tion is 12 months. However, the State Government may revoke or modify the detention order at an early time. 5. It has been settled by the Supreme Court that it is in­cumbent on the detaining authority to satisfy the Court that the detention of the petitioner is legal and in conformity with the mandatory provisions of the law authorising such detention. Once the rule is issued it is the bounden duty of the Court to satisfy itself that all the safeguards provided by the law have been scrupulously observed and the citizen is not deprived of his personal liberty otherwise than in accordance with law. The burden of showing that the detention is in accordance with the procedure established by law is always on the detaining authority. If any authority is required we may refer to Icchu Devi, AIR 1980 SC 1983 and State of Rajas than vs. Shamsher Singh AIR 1985 SC 1082 . 6. The burden of showing that the detention is in accordance with the procedure established by law is always on the detaining authority. If any authority is required we may refer to Icchu Devi, AIR 1980 SC 1983 and State of Rajas than vs. Shamsher Singh AIR 1985 SC 1082 . 6. In A. K. Roy vs. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 710 at para 78, the Supreme Court has observed : "We should have thought that it would have been wrong to fix a minimum period of detention., regardless of the nature and seriousness of the grounds of deten­tion. The fact that a person can be detained for the maximum period of 12 months does not place upon the detaining authority the obligation to direct that he shall be detained for the maximum period. The detaining authority can always exercise its discretion regarding the length of the period of detention." 7. In Ashok Kumar vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1982 SC 1143 at para 11, the Supreme Court has held : 'Under the scheme of the Act the period of detention must necessarily vary according to the exigencies of each case i.e. the nature of the prejudicial activity complained of. It is not that the period of detention must in all circumstances extend to the maximum period of 12 months as laid down in Section 13 of the Act." 8. In Bikath Narayan Sarma vs. State of Assam, 1934 Crl. L. J. 81 (Gauhati) (1983) 1 GLR 431 this Court observed : "The confirmation of the order for a period of 12 mon­ths on these facts, without any indication at all in the records as to why the maximum period visualised by the Act was prescribed, has to be regarded as a result of non-application of mind to a vital fact." 9. The question which arises for consideration is whether there was non-application of mind while fixing the period of detention for 12 months in light of the above decisions. The question which arises for consideration is whether there was non-application of mind while fixing the period of detention for 12 months in light of the above decisions. The order dated 25 7.86 was issued in the name of the Governor by the Under Secretary (Home) to the Government of Manipur stating that in pursuance of the recommendation made by the Advisory Board the Governor of Manipur was pleased to confirm the detention of lal shram Manaobi Singh @ lanobi @ Thembi and to detain the said detenu for a period of 12 months from the date of detention. The order dated 25.7.86 does not reveal or indicate as to why the detenu has been detained for the max­imum period of 12 months. The said order is a formal order of the Government authenticated by the Under Secretary (Home) and issued in the name of the Governor under the Rules of Business of the Government of Manipur. The original order is in the file. Therefore we have perused the records produced by the learned Government Advocate. A note prepared and submitted for approval by a subordinate officer of the Secret­ariat shows : '' In order to prevent him in indulging unlawful and subversive activities, Government may fix the period of detention as 12 months from the date of detention ". The next note of the Under Secretary (Home) reads : " As recom­mended by the Advisory Board the detention order may be confirmed and be detained for one period of one year. Approval of C.M. may kindly be obtained". Thereafter the Chief Minister confirmed the notes. 10. Shri Mohendra Singh is the Under Secretary (Home) to the Government of Manipur who dealt with the relevant file. In his additional affidavit he has stated : "The illegal activities of the detenu which are of hig­hly serious nature prejudicial to the maintenance of security of State and maintenance of public order, app­roval for confirmation and for detention for a maximum period of detention for 12 months in exercise of Section 12(1) and Section 13 of the National Security Act, 1980 was sought for from the Chief Minister". The question which arises for consideration is whether reasons or grounds for detention of the maximum period of 12 months can be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise. 11. The question which arises for consideration is whether reasons or grounds for detention of the maximum period of 12 months can be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise. 11. In Commissioner of Police vs. Gordhandas, AIR 1952 SC 169 the Supreme Court has held : "An attempt was made by referring to the Com­missioner's affidavit to show that this was really an order of cancellation made by him and that the order was his order and not that of Government. We are clear that public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are in­tended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." The case before the Supreme Court was in connection with the grant and cancellation of a cinema licence. 12. In Mohinder Singh v. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851 , the Supreme Court relying on Gordhandas (Supra) has held that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the seasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds brought out. 13. An order under Section 12 read with Section 13 of National Security Act is made basing on certain grounds by State Government by exercising statutory function. There­fore, the validity of the order must be judged by the reasons so mentioned in the file. The order cannot be explained in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. 14. The learned Government Advocate has submitted that on the basis of the above notes, the maximum period of de­tention has been fixed. The contention of the learned Government Advocate cannot be accepted. The order cannot be explained in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. 14. The learned Government Advocate has submitted that on the basis of the above notes, the maximum period of de­tention has been fixed. The contention of the learned Government Advocate cannot be accepted. The detention order of the District Magistrate, Imphal, dated 18.6.86 which has been ap­proved and confirmed by the State Government shows that the detenu has been detained "with a view to preventing bins from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order". Therefore, the expression "in order to prevent him in indulging unlawful and subversive activities" in the note is not the ground or basis for fixing the maximum period, but it has been used for the purpose of or cause for detention, and the detention order has been so passed. A close reading of Sections 11 and 12 of the Natio­nal Security Act reveals that Government can fix the period of detention less than 12 months. In this view of the matter, we find that the Government has fixed 12 moths without any indication in the records as to why the maximum period has been fixed. The records show that order has been confirmed in a mechanical way. 15. Considering the over-all circumstances and facts of the case in hand, we are of the view that there was non-application of mind while fixing the maximum period or detention for 12 months. Therefore, the continued detention of lal shrara Manaobi @ Inaobi @ Thembi is illegal and he is entitled to be released. 16. In the result, the detention order dated 25.7.86 is set aside and the detenu lal shram Manaobi Singh @ Inaobi @ Thembi shall be released forthwith if he is not otherwise required in other cases. Accordingly, the petition is allowed,