JUDGMENT - PURANIK S.W., J.:---Petitioner Smt. Sonali is the wife of the detenu Vilas Ghag, who has been detained under the National Security Act by an order dated 12-5-1992 issued by the 2nd respondent. The order was served on the detenu on the same day and he has been committed to the Nasik Road, Central Prison. The petitioner impugns the said order of detention by way of this writ petition. 2. Mrs. Ansari, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that in the instant case even though the order of detention and the order of committal were served on the detenu on 12-5-1992, the grounds of detention and the compilation annexed thereto were not served upon the detenu till 17-5-1992, on which day it was served on him. She, therefore, submitted that the grounds of detention have been furnished beyond the period of 5 days permitted by the National Security Act which has vitiated the right of the detenu to make an effective representation and, therefore, prays that the detention order be quashed and set aside. 3. In reply to this contention, the Detaining Authority Mr. Ramamurthi, the then Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, has, in paragraph 9 of his affidavit in reply, stated as follows :- "With reference to para 4(iii) of the petition, I deny the petitioner's contention in the said para, that the grounds of detention were served upon the detenu beyond the period of 5 days as alleged. I say that Detention Order was served upon the detenu on the same day i.e. on 12-5-1992 at about 22.10 hrs. and the grounds of detention along with the material relied upon for issuing detention order was served upon the detenu on 17-5-1992 at 11.45 hrs. It is thus clear that grounds of detention and the material were served upon the detenu within prescribed period of 5 days from the actual detention of the detenu. I deny the petitioner's contention that the grounds of detention and other documents were served on the detenu on 18-5-1992 as alleged. I repeat and state that the grounds of detention and the material were served upon the detenu on 17-5-1992. Hence I deny the petitioner's consequent allegations made in the said para that the detenu's right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been violated as alleged." 4. We have heard Mrs. Ansari and Mr. I repeat and state that the grounds of detention and the material were served upon the detenu on 17-5-1992. Hence I deny the petitioner's consequent allegations made in the said para that the detenu's right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been violated as alleged." 4. We have heard Mrs. Ansari and Mr. Kachare, the learned Public Prosecutor, on this submission. The record clearly discloses that the detention order was served on the detenu on 12-5-1992 and, as per the affidavit of the Detaining Authority, the grounds of detention and the documents were served upon the detenu on 17-5-1992. Section 8 of the National Security Act provides that when a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than ten days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the appropriate Government. It is thus obvious that the legislature in its wisdom has, while granting a concession to the detaining authorities, cautioned them that the grounds of detention shall be served on the detenu as soon as may be, but ordinarily not later than five days, that is to say, the superiority of Article 22(5) of the Constitution has to be maintained and respected and in order to enable the detenu to make an effective representation against the order to the appropriate Government, which right commences immediately from the time of his detention, the grounds of detention must be communicated contemporaneously with the order of detention. It is only by way of an exception, in a given case where the grounds of detention could not be communicated simultaneously with the order of detention, that the legislature, by section 8, has directed the Detaining Authority to serve the same as soon as may be, but not later than five days. Even in exceptional circumstances when time can be extended to ten days for reasons to be recorded in writing, the courts would expect some valid reasons for non-communication of the grounds right on the day of detention or as soon as may be thereafter. 5. Even in exceptional circumstances when time can be extended to ten days for reasons to be recorded in writing, the courts would expect some valid reasons for non-communication of the grounds right on the day of detention or as soon as may be thereafter. 5. On a perusal of paragraph 9 extracted above from the affidavit in reply of the Detaining Authority, we find that there is absolutely no hint of any logic reason submitted on his behalf as to why the grounds of detention and the compilation of documents were served on the detenu on the fifth day from his detention. It appears that it has been taken as a matter of course that the grounds can be supplied at any time within the five days mentioned in section 8 of the Act. We, would , therefore, call upon the concerned authorities to bear in mind that section 8 of the National Security Act does not overshadow the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, but it merely gives an additional concession and for availing of that concession the Detaining Authority must have some valid reason which should be disclosed to the Court in the event the detenu challenges his order of detention on the ground of breach of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. In the instant case, in the absence of any reasons offered by the Detaining Authority, we are unable to sustain the order of detention inasmuch as non-communication of the grounds of detention has breached the detenu's right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. 6. In the result, we allow the petition and make the rule absolute. The impugned order of detention passed against the detenu Vilas Ghag is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenu shall be released forthwith if not otherwise required. Petition allowed. -----