JUDGMENT 1. - The detenu petitioner Pooran Sineh through his cousin Rajender Singh has challenged his detention vide Order dated April 12.1990 by filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for quashing that order as well as Annexure-5 dated May 17,1990 rejecting his representation by the State Government and Annexure-6 dated June 2,1990 the Order issued after the approval of the detention by the State Government directing the detention of the detenu from April 12, 1990 to April 11, 1991. 2. The averments in the writ petition are that Collector Dholpur on April 12, 1990 issued Order for detention of the petitioner under Section 13 (2) of the National Security Act (for short the N.S.A. hereinafter). Vide Annexure/1, the detenu was intimated of the Order and the grounds of detention was supplied to him. The grounds contained the description of various cases instituted against the petitioner detenu and the necessity of keeping him under detention in the interest of the general public and to maintain public order. The petitioner and his cousin brother Rajender Singh made representations to the State Government which were rejected. Similarly the representation made to the Central Government was also rejected. 3. The legality of the Order of detention of the detenu has been challenged on a number of grounds. However, the point most emphatically argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 3 (5) of the N. S. A. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court given in Mishri Lal v. State of Rajasthan and another, Cr.LR (Raj.) 1988, 96 wherein non-compliance of the provisions of Section 3 (5) of the N. S. A. was taken to be a serious infirmity in the processing and the Habeas Corpus petition was allowed and the detenu was ordered to be released. 5. The learned counsel for the Union of India contended that there is difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of the word report occurring in Section 3 (5) of the N. S A. It has been urged by Mr. 5. The learned counsel for the Union of India contended that there is difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of the word report occurring in Section 3 (5) of the N. S A. It has been urged by Mr. Rajendra Lodha, learned counsel for the Union of India that the Honourable Judges of the Division Bench deciding the case of Mishri Lal (1) supra had not taken into consideration the fact that the facts and circumstances before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shei Mohammad v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 2049 were altogether different in as much as there was no compliance at all of the provisions of Section 3 (5) of the N. S. A., what to talk of the compliance not being proper. That, in case the interpretation of the word report to Central Government within seven days is construed to mean that the report should reach the Central Government within seven days, it would frustrate the very purpose of the enactment of the law of detention and on this technical ground the detenus would be released despite there being serious allegations against them for disturbing law and order. Mr. Lodha, as such made a prayer that in view of the interpretation given to the words report the matter to the Central Government expressed in the cases of Yogendra Singh v. State of Bihar and ors., 1985 Cr.LJ 889 and Ullas Sahu and ors. v. District Magistrate, Cuttack and ors., 1988 Cr.LJ 32 , the matter requires further consideration and the principle enunciated in Mishrilals case (I) (supra) by the Division Bench of this Court should not be made applicable to the present case and he matter should be referred to a Larger Bench. Section 3 (5) of the N. S. A. reads as under:- "3(5)-When any order is made or approved by the State Government under this section the State Government shall, within seven days, report the fact to the Centra] Government together with the ground on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in the opinion of the State Government, have a bearing on the necessity for the Order". 6. 6. The argument of the learned counsel for the Union of India is that the period of seven days is allowed for despatching the report and it does not mean that the report should reach the Central Government within seven days. 7. Before discussing the significance of the term used in Sec 3 (5) of the N. S. A. we should look to the facts of the present case to find out as to when the report was sent and when did it reach the Central Government. 8. The Order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Dholpur. It was approved by the State Government on April 21 1990. The report is said to have been despatched on April 21 1990. The learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan placed for perusal a Wireless Message received from the Ministry of Home Affairs showing that the Central Government applied its mind on May 4, 1990 and argued that the report must have reached prior to that. Yet another Wireless Message received by the learned counsel for the Union of India is to the effect that the report from the State Government reached the Ministry of Home Affairs on April 30, 1V90. The report thus admittedly reached after the lapse of period of seven days of the approval of the Order of detention. 9. The question to be decided now is whether the despatch of report within the period of seven days from approval of the order of detention is compliance of the directions in Section 3 (5) A of the N. S. A. or not. 10. In Sher Mohammads case (2) (supra), their Lordships while discussing the provisions of Section 3 (4) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (19/1; were pleased to observe as under : "A fair reading of Section 3 indicates that the State Government may directly issue an order of detention or if it is done by a lesser authority, approve of such detention order as provided in the statute. Sub section (4) of Section 3, which we have extracted obligates the State Government to communicate, within seven days of the order of detention it makes or it approves, that fact to the Central Government, together with the grounds on which the order has been made and other relevant particulars. Sub section (4) of Section 3, which we have extracted obligates the State Government to communicate, within seven days of the order of detention it makes or it approves, that fact to the Central Government, together with the grounds on which the order has been made and other relevant particulars. Even assuming that the order is made by the District Magistrate and is approved by the State Government, the communication has to be made to the Central Government, within the time specified. This procedural mandate is inviolable except on peril of the order being voided". 11. In that case the report was sent a day prior to the approval of the order of detention by the State Government and that has given rise to the argument of Mr. Lodha that there being no compliance at all, the question of interpretation of the period given for sending the report was not before their Lordships. 12. True it is that the facts of the case were different still in view of the principle enunciated above, the guideline is that the report or the communication should be within seven days of the order of detention if the State Government makes it or it approves in case the Order is passed by any other authority. The provisions of Section 3 (4) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (1971), and Section 3 (5) of the N. S. A. are identical. The Division Bench of this Court in Mishrilals case (1) (supra) held that the report should be within seven days of the order or approval by the State Government of the detention Order and mere dispatching of the report within such period would not mean the compliance of the provisions of Section 3 (5) of the N. S. A. 13. The principle enunciated in Sher Mohammads case (2) (supra) was followed in the case of Vinayak Ramchandra Sakhalkar and etc. v. D. Ramchandran, Commissioner of Police, Thane and ors., 1985 Cr.LJ 1257 and it was observed as under:- "Section 3 (5) casts a duty on the State Government to report the fact to the Central Government within seven days together with the grounds on which order has been made and such other particulars, as in the opinion of the State Government, have bearing on the necessity of the Order. Therefore, unless the report sent by the State Government under Section 3 (5) of the Act is received by the Central Government, it cannot be said that the fact of detention tog there with the grounds on which the order has been made is communicated or reported to the Central Government within the meaning of Section 3 (5) of the Act. 14. Similar view was expressed in the case of Guru Charan Singh v. Superintendent Central Jail, Bareilly and ors., 1986 All.LJ 1172 ) and principal enunciated in Sher Mohammads case (2) (supra) was followed. 15. The learned Judges of this Court in Mishrilals case (1) (supra) have also placed reliance on the finding given by their Lordships of the Bombay and Allahabad High Courts in the cases referred above. 16. In the case of Yogendra Singh v. State of Bihar and ors. 1985 Cr.LJ 889 (supra), the Division Bench of the Patna High Court has however, taken a different view on the point and in the given circumstances of the case held that it cannot be said that the report ought to have reached the Central Government within seven days because the obligation under section 3(5) is that the State Government should send a report and it is not that the report should reach within the period of seven days. 17. It is to be noted that the word sending and reaching do not occur in Section 3(5) of the N.S.A. and therefore its provisions cannot be read by inserting these words. It is also important to consider that Sher Mohammads case (2) (supra) does not appear to have been placed before their Lordships of the Patna High Court while that case was decided. 18. The decision of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Ullas Sahu and etc.s case (4; (supra) is in line with the opinion of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Yogendra Singhs case (3) (supra). The Supreme Court decision of Sher Mohammads case (2 (supra) does not appear to have been referred before their Lordships as there is no discussion in that regard in the judgment. 19. The fixing of the limitation of the period of seven days in Section 3(5) of the N.S.A. is purposeful. The Supreme Court decision of Sher Mohammads case (2 (supra) does not appear to have been referred before their Lordships as there is no discussion in that regard in the judgment. 19. The fixing of the limitation of the period of seven days in Section 3(5) of the N.S.A. is purposeful. The provisions oi the Preventive Detention enactment deprive a person of his personal liberty and for that reason Legislature has been vigilant to introduce the provisions such as to affording a number of opportunities at various stages in various ways to the detenu to convince the concerned authorities that the Order of detention is improper or illegal. It is also by way of safeguard that the authority passing the detention Order, the State Government and the Central Government are expected to be very prompt in disposing of the matters relating to the Orders of the detention so that a person may not be deprived of his liberty for a long period without there being any ground for it. It is in this light that the word report has been interpreted. 20. When the obligation of the State Government to report within seven days envisaged by Section 3(5) of the N.S.A. has been interpretated by the Apex Court of the country as meaning that the report should reach the Central Government within seven days and the decision of the Mishrilals case (1) (supra) is based on those guidelines and there is also of the opinion expressed by their Lordships of the Bombay and Allahabad High Courts in the cases referred to above, simply, because the two High Courts viz. Patna and Orissa which, as observed, are not based on the decision of Sher Mohammads case (2) (supra), have given different interpretation, we do not consider it proper to have the opinion of the Larger Bench on the point. 21. In view of the fact that, the report did not reach the Central Government within seven days of the approval of the Order of the detention of the State Government, the petitioner is entitled to be released. 22. As the petition on this ground alone, we need not to discuss and express opinion on any other ground raised in the petition. 23. Consequently, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner forth, if not required in any other case.Petition allowed. *******