JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ of Habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the detention under Section 3 of the National Security Act. 2. The petitioner was detained earlier by an order of the District Magistrate, Kota dated March 20, 1989 and the said order was challenged by way of Writ Petition No. 2314/89 and the order of detention was set aside by this court 3. The petitioner was detained again vide order dated 4-6-1992. A copy of grounds of detention was served on the petitioner and he was also served with an order passed under Section 3(4) of the Act, dated 11th June, 1992, in which it was mentioned that there are sufficient reasons for detention of the petitioner and the State Government has approved the detention. Vide order dated 28.h July, 1992 it was informed that the Advisory Board has considered the enrire record including the representation of the petitioner and the State Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, directed that the petitioner shall be detained from 4th June, 1992 to 3rd June, 1993. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Kota (Rural) dated 28th May, 1992 has given various instances, from which it was evident that the petitioner was involved in number of criminal activities, on the basis of which the detention of the petitioner was proposed. 4. The only one point which has been raised before us is that a representation was sent to the President of India (Annexure-5) on 20.8.1992 and in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 it was obligatory on the part of the Central Government to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and since the representation of the petitioner has not been considered till date, the order of detention is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 5. No reply has been filed on behalf of Union of India, respondent No. 2. 6. 5. No reply has been filed on behalf of Union of India, respondent No. 2. 6. In the reply submitted on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 3 to 5 it has been stated that the petitioner is involved in criminal activities since last 9 years and 26 cases are registered against him and his companions involving the petitioner in theft, rioting, trespass, forgery, attempt to murder and even murder and because of the terror of the petitioner, no person is even coming forward to give any evidence against him and the petitioner is acting as a Mafia Head. The activities being prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the action having been taken following the procedure laid down under law, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 7. Earlier the detention order was quashed on the ground that the representation was not considered by the State Government with promptness. It has further been submitted that the representation which was sent by the petitioner has been forwarded to the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(5) of the Act and no assistance from the provisions of Section 14 can betaken, inasmuch as the order in the present case has been passed by the Officer mentioned in sub section (3) of section 5, of the State Government and the power to revoke or modify such order was with the State Government. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the representation submitted to the Advisary Board or to the State Government alone was to be considered and no right has accrued to the detenue if any representation is made under Section 14 of the Act Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Mohd. Dhana Ali Khan v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 2 SCC 586 wherein the Apex Court has held that the absence of revocation does not prove non application of mind. 8. It is submitted that the power of the Central Government for modification or revocation of the order is discretionary and non exercise of power does not confer any right or privilege on the detenue. 8. It is submitted that the power of the Central Government for modification or revocation of the order is discretionary and non exercise of power does not confer any right or privilege on the detenue. It is also submitted that the grounds of order of detention were served in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the Act and the matter was referred to the Advisory Board, which has considered the representation submitted by the petitioner along with other documents and the procedure as prescribed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act was complied with. 9. Arguments of both the sides have been beard. There is a statutory duty under sub-section (5) of Section 3 which requires the State Government to report to the Central Government within 7 days in respect of any order of detention made or approval given. On the basis of such report, the Central Government may revoke or monify the order of detention without prejudice to the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. This exception of the provisions of Section 21 of the 1897 Act is because the order passed is not of the Central Government but still in view of the specific provision as contained in Section 14 of the Act the Central Government has the power to revoke or modify the order passed by the State Government. 10. The distinction which the learned counsel for the respondents has drawn that there is no power to make representation under Section 14 to the Central Government and the provisions of Section 14 are only directory and not mandatory has been considered by this court in Shambhu Singh v. Stare of Rajasthan, 1989 (2) RLR 73 , wherein it was held that the representation addressed to the President of India is a valid representation and non-consideration or non disposal of the representation renders the detention of the detenue illegal. The power to make a representation by the detenue is conferred under the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India That representation could be to the detaining authority or to the Advisory Board or to the State Government. 11. In another set of cases it could be to the officer of the Central Government or the detaining authority of the Central Government or for the Advisory Board. 11. In another set of cases it could be to the officer of the Central Government or the detaining authority of the Central Government or for the Advisory Board. It is not disputed that the representation which was submitted by the petitioner to the detaining authority was referred to the Advisory Board and the compliance to that extent was made. Still the question, which arises for determination is whether a representation can be made to the Central Government and if the said representation is not disposed of, the detention of the petitioner can be quashed on that ground. 12. An opportunity was given to the Central Government to file reply, but no reply has been filed till date as it has not been denied that the representation was not received by the Central Government or any order was passed thereon. 13. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India reads as under: "When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order". 14. The matter with regard to the principles to be followed in regard to representation of the detenue the Apex Court in Jaynaryan Sukul v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 675 has laid down the following principles: "Broadly stated, four principles are to be followed in regard to representation of detenue. First the appropriate authority is bound to give an opportunity to the detenue to make a representation and to consider the representation of the detenue as early as possible. Secondly, the consideration of the representation of the detenue by the appropriate authority is entirely independent of any action by the Advisory Board including the consideration of the representation of the detenue by the Advisory Board. Thirdly, there should not be any delay in the matter of consideration. It is true that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the measure of time taken by the appropriate authority for consideration but it has to be remembered that the Government has to be vigilant in the governance of the citizens. A citizen's right raises a correlative duty of the State. It is true that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the measure of time taken by the appropriate authority for consideration but it has to be remembered that the Government has to be vigilant in the governance of the citizens. A citizen's right raises a correlative duty of the State. Fourthly, the appropriate Government is to exercise its opinion and judgment on the representation before sending the case along with the detenue's representation to the Advisory Board. If the appropriate Government will not send the matter to the Advisory Board. If, however, the Government will, not release the detenue the Government will send the case along with the detenue's representation to the Advisory Board. If thereafter the Advisory Board will express an opinion in favour of the detenue the Government will release the detenue. If the Advisory Board will express an opinion against the release of the detenue the Government may still exercise the power to release the detenue". 15. In K. Aruna Kumari v. Government of A.P., AIR 1988 SC 227 it was held by the Apex Court that no period of limitation is fixed for disposal of an application under Section 14 of the Act. 16. In State U P. v. Zavad Jama Khan, AIR 1984 SC 1095 , a representation was made by the detenue to the State Government as well as to the Central Government, which was addressed in the name of the Prime Minister. The grievance of the petitioner was that the Central Government has not dealt with the application for revocation of the order of detention under Section 14 even now. In the counter, it was submitted that it was not a statutory right for revocation of impugned order of detention under Section 14 and, therefore, it was not at all necessary for the Central Government to deal with it. It was held by the Supreme Court that the principle that emerges from various decisions is that the power of revocation conferred upon the Central Government under section 14 of the Act is statutory power which may be exercised on information received by the Central Government from its own sources including that received by the Central Government, under Section 3(5) or from the detenue in the form of detenue's representation. It is for the Central Government to decide whether or not it should revoke the order of detention in a particular case. It was held in the present case that the detenue was not deprived of the right of making representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India read with Section 8(1) of the Act. Although the detenue had no right to simultaneously make a representation against the order of detention to the Central Government. Under Article 22(5) there was no power cast on the State Government to forward the same to the Central Government, nevertheless the State Government forwarded the same forthwith. The Central Government dealt with the representation for revocation/modification of the detention under Section 14 of the Act. That being so, it was not obligatory on the part of the Central Government to consider the application for revocation/modification of the order under Section 14 of the Act. The nature of the power of revocation conferred on the Central Government under Section 11 of the Cofeposa Act was also considered and it was observed: "The making of an application for revocation to the Central Government under Section 11 of the Act is therefore part of the Constitutional right a citizen has against his detention under a law relating to preventive detention. While Article 21(5) contemplates the making of a representation against the order of detention to the detaining authority, which has to be referred by the appropriate Government to the Advisory Board constituted under Section 8(a) of the Act, the Parliament has, in its wisdom, enacted Section 11 and conferred an additional safeguard against the arbitrary executive action". 17. In Phillippa Anny Dukes' case, reported in AIR 1982 SC 1178 it was held that the representation from several sources addressed to whomsoever officer of one or other department of the Government cannot be treated as representation to the Govt. under section 11(l)(b) of the Cofeposa Act. 18. In Ram Bali Rajbhar v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 4 SCC 47 while examining the scope of Section 14(1) of the Misa Act it was held that the State Government can revoke or modify the detention order if it is satisfied on new or supervening conditions or facts coming to light. that a revocation or modification had become necessary. In Ram Bali Rajbhar v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 4 SCC 47 while examining the scope of Section 14(1) of the Misa Act it was held that the State Government can revoke or modify the detention order if it is satisfied on new or supervening conditions or facts coming to light. that a revocation or modification had become necessary. Section 14 of the Act apparently vests a wider power than that which the State Government may have possessed under the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which is, by having been specifically mentioned in Section 14 of the Act, made applicable in such cases. The language of Section 14 of the Act. however, makes it clear that the power under Section 14 is not necessarily subject to the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. This means that a revocation or modification of an order of the State Government is possible even without complying with the restrictions laid down in Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. Nevertheless, as the wider power under Section 14 of the Act does not over-ride but exists "without prejudice to the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act", we think that the correct interpretation of the provisions, read together, would be that it is left to the State Government in the exercise of its discretion, either to exercise the power read with the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act or without the aid of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. 19. The above observations have been made by the Apex Court with regard to the power of the State Government under Section 14 to revoke or modify the order of detention. 20. In Satpal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 2230 , it was held that making of an application for revocation to the Central Government under Section 11 of the Cofeposa Act is a part of constitutional right a citizen has against his detention under law while relating to preventive detention. 20. In Satpal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 2230 , it was held that making of an application for revocation to the Central Government under Section 11 of the Cofeposa Act is a part of constitutional right a citizen has against his detention under law while relating to preventive detention. It was further observed that while Article 22(5) contemplates the making of representation against the order of detention to the detaining authority, which has to be referred by the appropriate Government to the Advisory Board constituted under Section 8(a) of the Act, Parliament has in its wisdom enacted Section 11 and conferred an additional safeguard against arbitrary executive action. It is, therefore, idle to contend that the State Government had no duty to forward the representation made by the detenue to the Central Government for revocation of his order of detention under section 11 of the Act. The State Government had, therefore, no business in with holding the representation endorsed to the Central Government for revocation of the order of detention under Section 11 of the Act. It was further observed that a detenue has the right to simultaneously make a representation to the detaining authority which has to be considered by the Advisory Board, as also the right to apply to the Central Government for revocation of the detention order under Section 11. It is implicit in the decision in .Ratan Singh's case (supra) that there was a duty cast on the State Government to forward the representation to the Central Government forth with and failure to do so may render the continued detention illegal. 21. In State of Maharashtra v. Sunil Mafatlal Sazi, AIR 1988 SC 2091 the right of detenue to make representation to the Officer or the Government passing detention order in addition to the representation to the State Government and the Central Government was held not permissible. 22. From a perusal of various judgments of the Apex Court it is clear that the right to make representation under Section 14 of the Act to the Central Government to revoke or modify the detention order is there and the Apex Court has gone even to the extent that such power is implicit in accordance with the constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioner. It has been held that non.consideration of the representation would make the detention illegal. It has been held that non.consideration of the representation would make the detention illegal. The representation which was made in the case of Shambhu Singh, referred to above, was addressed to the President of India and it was held that is a proper representation to the Central Government and non consideration would make the detention of the detenue illegal. In the present case, no arguments have been advanced or reply has been filed or anything has been stated to take a contrary view and accordingly it is held that the Central Government was bound to consider the representation of the detenue and lapse of long time without any explanation makes the continued detention illegal. 23. In these circumstances, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the petitioner Ramesh Chand Garudiya forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.Petition allowed. *******