JUDGEMENT Shishak, J. :- In this writ application filed on 16-3-1992, it is stated that the petitioner has been detained under S. 3 of National Security Act by an order passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shri Khape Koza, respondent No. 2. The petitioner, according to the certificate issued by Jailor, Dimapur Sub-Jail, has been in custody under the aforesaid Section of law with effect from 24-12-1991. 2. It appears the petitioner was earlier arrested in connection with some other criminal cases but in those cases he was granted bail. It is the specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is now detained in sub jail, under the aforesaid S. 3 of NSA as stated above. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner at the bar today that as per information received from the Jailor the petitioner has been kept under detention on the basis of custody warrant only And in that custody warrant the on Section mentioned is S. 3 of NSA. It is further stated by the learned counsel that when the petitioner requested the respondent No. 2 to furnish copy of order of detention he was informed that he was simply told that the facts could be ascertained only from the Jail authority. It is now stated that at last the petitioner was able to get a certificate which is filed as annexure-A issued by the Jailor on 11-1-92 to say that the petitioner has been kept in custody under S. 3 of NSA as per the warrant of immediate custody order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Respondent No. 2). 3. In our anxiety to ascertain the truth of the matter, we have made effort to have the record of the case available before us through learned Sr. Govt. Advocate. We are informed now by the learned Sr. Govt. Advocate that he sent learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr. V. Angami to collect the relevant case record from respondent No. 2 along with a copy of this writ application. We are shocked to hear that the respondent No. 2 refused to hand over any relevant case record in connection with this writ application. We are further shocked that although he is impleaded as respondent No. 2 he has not taken any steps to explain the matter himself. 4. Learned Sr. Govt. We are shocked to hear that the respondent No. 2 refused to hand over any relevant case record in connection with this writ application. We are further shocked that although he is impleaded as respondent No. 2 he has not taken any steps to explain the matter himself. 4. Learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, in order to assist this court, as he was requested earlier, had enquired from the Home Department whether any such order of detention was issued under S.3 NSA in respect of this petitioner. He has been informed that there is no such order. 5. Under the provision of the National Security Act, 1980 only the State is authorised to pass an order of detention in terms of S. 3 of the aforesaid Act. We may extract S. 3 : "Power to make orders detaining certain persons : (1) The Central Government or the State, Government may; (a) if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India, the relations of India with foreign powers, of the security of India, or (b) if satisfied with respect to any foreigner that with a view to regulating his continued presence in India or with a view to making arrangements for his expulsion from India, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. (2) The Central Government or the State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained." 6. Obviously the warrant of detention issued by respondent No. 2 is illegal as it is not warranted by law. In other words issuance of warrant of custody by respondent No. 2 has no sanction of law at all. In our view detention of the petitioner in such a situation amounts to wrongful confinement. Apart from the fact that respondent No. 2 is not authorised to act under S. 3 of NSA, the behaviour of respondent No. 2 is simply shocking, to say the least. In our view detention of the petitioner in such a situation amounts to wrongful confinement. Apart from the fact that respondent No. 2 is not authorised to act under S. 3 of NSA, the behaviour of respondent No. 2 is simply shocking, to say the least. Respondent No. 2 is a Judicial Officer. We expect that he performs his judicial duty in a reasonable way. We expect that the respondent No. 2 being a Judicial Officer, ought to have applied his mind before the aforesaid order was issued. No judicial officer who is reasonably instructed in law would have acted in this manner. 7. The detention of the petitioner is highly illegal unwarranted and wrongful. He has been made to suffer for no reasonable cause whatsoever. 8. In the facts and circumstances of this case we hereby set aside and quash the warrant of detention dated 24-12-1991 passed by the respondent No. 2. We direct that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith. 9. We view this matter in all seriousness because it involves the liberty of a citizen of a democractic country. Liberty of a citizen can be deprived of only and we say, only in accordance with the procedure laid down under the law. In view of this the petitioner stands entitled to receive compensation for wrongful detention. 10. The respondent No. 2 is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- to the petitioner within a month from today. With the above observation and direction this petition is disposed of. Order accordingly.