JUDGMENT 1. - In this petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges his detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act' or ' N.S.A.'). 2. As per the averments of the petitioner, he is a resident of Ajmer. He is the President of Tempo Union, Ajmer. His elder brother Madan Singh is the Editor of the Weekly Magazine Lahron ki Barkha" published from Shrinagar Road, Ajmer. In the aforesaid weekly magazine, a few news items were published against some police officers of the District of Ajmer. That brought the petitioner and his brother Madan Singh in the bad-books of the local police. Madan Singh was arrested and detained under the NSA. The petitioner was arrested on 20-8-1989 and lodged on the same day in Central Jail, Ajmer, in pursuance to the order Annex. 4 issued on the same day by the District Magistrate, Ajmer. In the grounds of detention, it was stated that he was involved in as many as 13 criminal cases and some security proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner submitted his representation against his detention to the President of India on 6-10-1989. His representation has not been disposed of as yet and that vitiates his detention under the Act. It was averred that the grounds of detention furnished to him vide Annx. 5 do not make out a case that he was acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 3. In the return filed by the State Government, it was denied that the grounds of detention had no connection with the maintenance of public order. It was stated that the petitioner is a desperate person and was involved in numerous criminal cases. As such, his detention under the Act had become necessary in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 4. No return or reply was filed by the Central Government. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General as well as the standing counsel for the Central Government. 6. The detention has been challenged mainly on two grounds (i) the representation sent by the petitioner to the President of India through the Regd. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General as well as the standing counsel for the Central Government. 6. The detention has been challenged mainly on two grounds (i) the representation sent by the petitioner to the President of India through the Regd. post/ A.D. has not been considered till to day and (ii) the grounds of detention have no rationale of nexus with the maintenance of public order. 7. Mr. Gupta elaborating his first contention argued that the petitioner sent his representation to the President of India on 6-10-1989, the copy of which is Annx. 10. The representation was sent through the Regd. post./A.D. The certificate of posting is Annx. 8 issued by the Ajmer Head Office. This representation has not been considered till now and that vitiates the petitioner's detention. 8. Mr. Chaudhary on the other hand contended on behalf of the Central Government that the representation was addressed to the President of India and not to the Home Ministry of the Central Government. The representation was thus addressed not to the proper authority and, as such, there is no question of making any consideration over it. 9. The first pertinent question arising for our deliberation is as to whether the representation made to the President of India by the petitioner is not maintainable and, as such, deserved no consideration. This question came before their Lordships of the Supreme Court for consideration from time to time. In Abdul Karim v. State of West Bengal (A.I.R. 1969 S. C. 1028) it was observed ; "A person detained under a law of preventive detention has a right to obtain information as to the grounds of detention and has also the right to make a representation protesting against an order of preventive detention. Article 22(5) does not expressely say to whom the representation is to be made and how the detaining authority is to deal with the representation." 10. Neither Article 22(5) of the Constitution nor any provision of N. S. A. lays down any form for representation by a detenu. It implies that even if a representation is not properly addressed to the State or Central Government, that will not take away the true character of the representation. Article 53 of the Constitution vests the executive power of the Union in the President. He is thus the Executive-head of the country. It implies that even if a representation is not properly addressed to the State or Central Government, that will not take away the true character of the representation. Article 53 of the Constitution vests the executive power of the Union in the President. He is thus the Executive-head of the country. Article 53(1) further speaks that the executive power vested in the President shall be exercised by him directly or through the officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution. In view of this specific provision, the representation addressed to the President by the detenu cannot be taken to have been made to a non-functionary. 11. We are unable to imagine that a representation addressed to the President of India by the dentenu would be consigned to a dust-bin by him with no consideration. It is in the knowledge of every-body that when any representation is made to the President it is sent by him to the concerned Ministry for action and disposal. We repeatedly asked Mr. Chaudhary learned counsel for the Central Government to bring any provision of law or any judicial pronouncement to our notice by which a representation addressed to the President by detenu can be or has been held not maintainable. 12. Section 14 of the N. S. A. confers a discretion on the Central Government to revoke or modify an order of detention made by the State Government. This discretionary power may be exercised on information received from (sic by) the Central Government from its own sources including that supplied by the State Government or from the representation received from the detenu. Section 14 does not lay down that the representation made by the detenu should be addressed to a particular authority or functionary. We are therefore, of the considered opinion that the representation addressed by the detenu to the President of India is a valid representation and cannot be thrown away only on ground that it has not been addressed to the Home Ministry of the Central Government or any of its officers. The contention raised by Mr. Chaudhary thus holds no ground. 13. The next question which arises for consideration is as to whether a representation at all was made by the detenu to the President of India? The contention raised by Mr. Chaudhary thus holds no ground. 13. The next question which arises for consideration is as to whether a representation at all was made by the detenu to the President of India? A specific averment has been made in sub-para (zu) of para 8 of the petition that the petitioner sent a representation to the President of India by Regd. post/A.D. on 6-10-1989. No return or counter affidavit has been filed by the Central Government denying or repudiating this averment. Apart from that the petitioner has filed Annx. 8 obtained by him from Ajmer Head Post-Office. It is a certificate showing that a registered letter was received addressed to the President of India from the detenu. Thus, the facts have been proved that the detenu sent a representation to the President of India by registered post/A D. 14. It was contended by Mr. Gupta that the representation addressed by the petitioner to the President of India on 6-10-1989 has not been disposed of till today by the Central Government. It is again not in dispute that the representation made by the detenu has not been considered and disposed of till today by the Central Government. No return or counter affidavit has been filed by the Central Government to show that the representation of the detenue has been dealt with and disposed of. Article 22 (5) of the Constitution guarantees a right to the detenu for making a representation against his detention. The right to seek revocation is thus a constitutional right. Therefore once a representation has been made to the Central Government, it is incumbent on the Central Government to consider the same. Of course, it has a discretion either to reject it or accept it. But the Central Govt. is duty bound to consider the representation without delay. When a representation has been made by the detenu to the Central Govt. and it has not been considered and disposed of, this non-consideration and non-disposal of the representation renders the continued detention of the detenu invalid. Here, in the instant case, the representation made on 6-10-89 by the detenu has not been considered and disposed of by the Central Government under Section 14 of the N.S A. till now and this lapse renders the continued detention of the petitioner invalid. 15. Here, in the instant case, the representation made on 6-10-89 by the detenu has not been considered and disposed of by the Central Government under Section 14 of the N.S A. till now and this lapse renders the continued detention of the petitioner invalid. 15. Since we are allowing this Habeas Corpus Petition on the ground discussed above, we need not decide the merits of the grounds of detention as to whether they have any nexus with the maintenance of public order. 16. In the result, we allow this Habeas Corpus Petition and direct the respondents to forthwith release the petitioner Shambhu Singh, if not wanted in any any other case.Petition allowed. *******