J. Sangma, J.:- This Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is for quashing the detention order dated 22.4.93 passed by Sri R.K. Angousana Singh, District Magistrate, Imphal District (Annexure-A/1) in Criminal N.S.A.No.4 of 1993, which was served on the petitioner in hazot on 25-4-93 and approved by the government of Manipur on 3-5-93. 2. The petitioner is a resident of Singjamei Makha Nameirakpam Leikai in the district of Imphal while he was in judicial custody at Central Jail in connection with criminal cases, he was elected M.L.A. from Punjamei Assembly Constituency in the election held on 27-12-84. After he became M.L.A., he was convicted in those cases but released by setting off the period of judicial custody which was more than 31/2 years. Thereafter, on 5-6-88, he founded a new political party called "PORAM-LEN APUNBA" to contest the coming Assembly election of 1990.He and his partymen then started to work for the party by going to the. people of different constituencies of the State of Manipur. In the meantime on 2-5-92, O/C Imphal P.S. suo moto registered a case under F.I.R. No. 290 (5) 92 U/Ss 302/34 I.P.C. against unknown persons for alleged assault and death of a rickshaw puller near Sagolband. It is not known who else were arrested in this case and what was the clue against the petitioner bur the police arrested him in this case on 21 -4-93 and produced him before a Magistrate on 22-4-93. In those days, he was a chronic patient of T.B. and high blood pressure and was on medical treatment at his house. The Magistrate on 22-4-93 remanded him to custody of the producing police till 25-4-93 for further investigation. When the police produced on 25-4-93 from their custody, the Magistrate remanded him to hazot. On that date (25-4-93), the District Magistrate, Imphal, served on him in hazot the order passed by him on 22-4-93 U/S 3(3) of the National Security Act, directing that he be detained until further order to prevent from doing acts prejudicial to Maintenance of public order. And on 26-4-93, the District Magistrate furnished him with the grounds for detention. The grounds were based on: (1) History sheet of the petitioner. Annexure-A/2 (1). (2) Extract copy of the interrogation statement of Shri Oinam Angangoha Singh @Bimol Singh (24) s/o O.Tomba Singh of Bamon Leikai Thangapat Mapal. Annexure-A/2 (2). And on 26-4-93, the District Magistrate furnished him with the grounds for detention. The grounds were based on: (1) History sheet of the petitioner. Annexure-A/2 (1). (2) Extract copy of the interrogation statement of Shri Oinam Angangoha Singh @Bimol Singh (24) s/o O.Tomba Singh of Bamon Leikai Thangapat Mapal. Annexure-A/2 (2). (3) Extract copies of the interrogation statement of Shri Sougrakpam Noren Singh @Nongdren (26) S/o S. Biramongol Singh of Singjamei Makha Aheibam Leikai. Annexure-A/2 (3). (4) Extract copy of the interrogation statement of Tongam Ngamthoi Singh (53) s/o (1) Anganghal Singh of Thangmeiband Maisnam Leikai, Annexure-A/2 (4). (5) A xerox copy of Secret Report of S.P. (CID) (SB) Manipur under No. 27/7 (91)- SB dated 1-8-90. Annexure-A/2 (5) (6) A. xerox copy of Secret Report of S.P. (CID) (SB) Manipur under No. 27/7 (91)/81-SB/544 dated 16-6-92, Annexure-A/2 (6). (7) Copy of FIR No. 290 (5)/92IPS U/S 302/34 I.P.C. Annexure A/2 (7). (8) Copy of FIR No. 374 (6) 92 IPS U/S 153-A/120-B/506/323 I.P.C., An­nexure A/2 (8). (9) Copy of FIR No.373 (6) 92 IPS U/S 120-B/153-A I.P.C. (not legible and cannot be read at all) Annexure-A/2 (9). (10) A xerox copy of leaflet of PORAMLEN APUNBA dated 15-6-92 having caption of "LEIMA CHINGEE WAPHAMDA PORAMLEN APUNBAGEE " Annexure A/2 (10) (11) A xerox copy of Confessional Report of S.P. CID (SB) Manipur under No. 27/7 (7)/88-SB (127) dated 24-9-92. Annexure A/2 (11), (12) A true copy for promulgation of prohibitory order U/S 144 (2) Cr. P.C. at Chingei Chig- and its surroundings dated 14-12-92 submitted by O.C./Lolong P.S. to S.P. Thoubal contents whereof are also not clearly visible. Annexure A/2 (12). (13) A copy of prohibitory order U/S 144 (2) Cr.PC issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Thoubal under No.7/SDO(TBL) LO/92/972 dated 16-12-92. Annexure A/2 (13). (14) A xerox copy of Press Release dated 20-4-93 from Department of Propaganda and Education, United National Liberation Front, Manipur. Annexure A/2 (14). (15) A xerox copy of leaflet from Luwang Nganba Meitei Purel, EREIPAK KANBA LUP having caption of "EREIPAK MEEYAMDA MEEYAMDA EREIPAK KANBA LUPKI PAOJEL" of which are totally blurred and not seen, Annexure A/2 (15). (16) A xerox copy of local Daily "POKNAPHAM" dated 21-4-93 of which are totally blurred and not seen. Annexure A/2 (16). (17) A xerox copy of local daily "Huiyen Lanbao" dated 21-4-93 of which are totally blurred and not seen. Annexure A/2 (17). (16) A xerox copy of local Daily "POKNAPHAM" dated 21-4-93 of which are totally blurred and not seen. Annexure A/2 (16). (17) A xerox copy of local daily "Huiyen Lanbao" dated 21-4-93 of which are totally blurred and not seen. Annexure A/2 (17). (18) A xerox copy of local Daily " JAGADAMBI" dated 21-4-93 of which are totally blurred and not seen. Annexure A/2 (18). At the end, it was stated that on these documents, he (District Magistrate) was satisfied that it was necessary to detain to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of State and maintenance of public order. By order dated 3-5-93 (not annexed) the Government of Manipur approved the detention order. 3. On 10-5-93, the petitioner made representation to (1) the Chief Secretary to the Government of Manipur and (2) the Home Secretary of Central Government. In this representation, he stated that- (1) He is a chronic patient of T.B. and high Blood Pressure for which he needed treatment at his home. (2) That the initial order dated 22-4-93 is for maintenance of public order but in the grounds which were served on him on 26-4-93, it has been stated that the detention was " for security of the State and maintenance of public order". The order, therefore, is vague and uncertain. (3) The party "PORAMLEN APUNBA" is non-communal registered political party which he had founded to contest the Assembly Election of 1990. It has not been banned. (4) Copies of documents supplied to him are blurred and illegible that has prevented him from making an effective representation. (5) Changei Ching is situated in the district of Thoubal, So, for the alleged incident in that district, the District Magistrate of Imphal District had no jurisdiction to pass the detention order. (6) The alleged incident and arrest in June, 1992 is a matter of law and order and cannot be made ground for the detention under the National Security Act, after lapse of long time. (7) The alleged interrogation statement of witnesses whose identities are not made known to him cannot be the ground for detention. 4. By letter dated 17-5-93. (6) The alleged incident and arrest in June, 1992 is a matter of law and order and cannot be made ground for the detention under the National Security Act, after lapse of long time. (7) The alleged interrogation statement of witnesses whose identities are not made known to him cannot be the ground for detention. 4. By letter dated 17-5-93. the Under Secretary (Home) Government of Manipur, informed the petitioner that upon due consideration of his representation the Government regretted that his request for revoking the detention could not be acceded to; but the representation would, however, be placed before the State Advisory Board for necessary advice. Thereafter, the petitioner did not know as to what happened to those representations. Hence, he preferred this petition. 5. The Joint Secretary to the Government of Manipur, Home Department, filed affidavit-in opposition on behalf of Respondents No.1, 2 and 3. The District Magistrate (Respondent No.3) who passed the detention order, did not file affidavit. The Respondent No. 4 (Central Government) also did not file affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the deponent (Joint Secretary, Home Department, Manipur) stated : (1) that PORAMLEN APUNBA is a political party whose sole objective was to re-name Manipur as "K ANGLEIPAK" (Homeland of Meiteis). From early part of 1992, the members of this party created problems which were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. (2) That the petitioner did not make statement in his representation that copies of documents supplied to him were blurred and illegible; so, this plea is false, fabricated and afterthought to suit his convenience. (3) That the Imphal PS registered (i) FIR 290 (5) 92 U/Ss 302/34 I.P.C. (ii) FIR 375 (6) 92 U/Ss 120-B /153 IPC and (iii) FTR 373 (6) 92 U/S 153-A/120-B/506.323 IPC.(4) That the Advisory Board, comprising Mr. D.M.Sen, Mr. Y.I. Singh, Ex-Judges of High Court and Mr. Priyananda Singh, Senior Advocate, submitted report dated 31 -5-93 stating that there were sufficient grounds to detain the petitioner to prevent from indulging in activities which would prejudice to 'security of the State and to maintenance of public order'. (5) That the Central Government also informed by a Telex Message dated 13-/-93 (Annexure-B/6) that the petitioner's request for revocation of the detention could not be acceded to; but through mistake, the message said that request could not be acceded to "by detenue" instead of saying" by Government of India". (5) That the Central Government also informed by a Telex Message dated 13-/-93 (Annexure-B/6) that the petitioner's request for revocation of the detention could not be acceded to; but through mistake, the message said that request could not be acceded to "by detenue" instead of saying" by Government of India". On these grounds, the Government of Manipur prayed for dismissing the petition. 6. For this particular case, the relevant provisions of the National Security Act are: Sec. 3 (3) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate or a Commission of Police, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may, by order in writing, direct that during such period as may be specified in the order, such District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (2), exercise the powers conferred by the sub-section; Provided that the period specified in an order by the State Government under this sub-section shall not, in the first instance, exceed three months, but the State Government may, if satisfied as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend such order to extend such period from time to time by any period not exceeding three months at any one time. (4) When any order is made under this section by an officer mentioned in sub-section (3), he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government to which he is subordinate together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in his opinion have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after making thereof unless, in the meantime it has been approved by the State Government; Provided that where under Section 8 the grounds of detention are communi­cated by the Officer making the order after five days but not later than ten days from the date of detention this sub-section shall apply subject to the modification that, for the words "twelve days", the words "fifteen days" shall be substituted. (5) When any order is made of approved by the State Government under this section, the State Government shall, within seven days, report the fact to the Central Government together with the grounds 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. Sec. 8. Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to persons affected by the order- (1) When a person is detained in pursuance of 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. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall require the authority to disclose facts which it considers to be against the public interest to disclose. Sec. 9. Constitution of Advisory Boards : (1) The Central Government and each State Government shall, whenever necessary, constitute one or more Advisory Boards for the purposes of this Act. (2) Every such Board shall consist of three persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of a High Court, and such persons shall be appointed by the appropriate Government. (3) The appropriate Government shall appoint one of the members of the Advisory Board who is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court to be its Chairman, and in the case of a Union territory, the appointment to the Advisory Board of any person who is a Judge of the High Court of a State shall be with the previous approval of the State Government concerned. Sec. 10. Sec. 10. Reference to Advisory Board: Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, in every case where a detention order has been made under this Act, the appropriate Government shall, within three weeks from the date of detention of a person under the order, place before the Advisory Board constituted by it under Section 9, the grounds on which the order has been made and the representation, if any, made by the person affected by the order, and in case where the order has been made by an officer mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 3, also the report by such officer under sub-section (4) of that section. Sec.11. Procedure of Advisory Board : (1) The Advisory Board shall, after considering the materials placed before it and, after calling for such further information as it may deem necessary from the appropriate Government or from any person called for the purpose through the appropriate Government or from the person concerned, and if, in any particular case, it considers it essential so to do or if the person concerned desires to be heard, after hearing him in person, submit its report to the appropriate Government within seven weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned. (2) The report of the Advisory Board shall specify in separate part thereof the opinion of the Advisory Board as to whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned. (3) When there is a difference opinion among the members forming the Advisory Board, the opinion of the majority of such members shall be deemed to be the opinion of the Board. (4) Nothing in this section shall entitle any person against whom a detention order has been made to appear by a legal practitioner in any matter connected with the reference to the Advisory Board, and the proceeding's of the Advisory Board and its report, excepting that part of the report in which the opinion of the Advisory Board is specified, shall be confidential. 7. Before dealing with the arguments, we think that it would be expedient to look to the report of the State Advisory Board dated 31-5-93 (Annexure-B/10) and the Telex Message dated 13-7-93 from the Central Government (Annexure-B/6). 7. Before dealing with the arguments, we think that it would be expedient to look to the report of the State Advisory Board dated 31-5-93 (Annexure-B/10) and the Telex Message dated 13-7-93 from the Central Government (Annexure-B/6). In short, the report of the State Advisory Board says: "Upon hearing the detenu in person and on very careful consideration of the ground for detention, the documents and the two representations (apparently meaning representation to (i)State Govern­ment and (ii) Central Government), We have reason to believe that the detenu's activities, particularly with regard to Chengei Ching area were likely to create disharmony and conflict amongst different sections of the people and accordingly, the Board found that there are good and sufficient reasons to detain Shri Bisheswar Singh in order to prevent from indulging in activities to the prejudice of "security of the State and maintenance of public order". The Board did not say anything as to why the points enumerated in the representation are unacceptable and what points the petitioner pressed before them. Even on accepting the report that the petitioner and his partymen created some disturbances in Chengei Ching area of Thoubal district, how the Board thought that the District Magistrate of Imphal District was justified in passing the detention order when the concerned District Magistrate of Thoubal did not think that to be necessary. In our opinion, this is a glaring mistake which the Board should not have committed. 8. We now come to the Telex Message dated 13-7-93 (Annexure -B/6). The deponent did not produce the letter as indicated in the Telex. That letter would made the thing more clear. This Telex Message and the letter which followed it, could not also be found in the file of Original record (No. 17 (1)/355/93-H) of the government of Manipur, Home Department which was placed for our perusal. It has to be remembered that the Govt. of India (Respondent No.4) did not file affidavit. In Harcharan v. State of Assam., 1986 Cri. LJ .979 (Gau), it was held the if on a point, there was no averment in the affidavit of Central Government it was not possible to conclude that due consideration was given by them. In the instant case, the respondent No.4 did not at all file affidavit. In Harcharan v. State of Assam., 1986 Cri. LJ .979 (Gau), it was held the if on a point, there was no averment in the affidavit of Central Government it was not possible to conclude that due consideration was given by them. In the instant case, the respondent No.4 did not at all file affidavit. So, the statement made by the Joint Secretary (Home) Government of Manipur could not be accepted to hold that the Central Government had committed clerical mistake in live message. 9. We will now deal with the rival contention. Mr. Ashok Potsangbau stated that since the Central Government did not file affidavit, he had nothing to argue. Mr. Chonjohn Singh, learned advocate for the petitioner, started with the contention that since the District Magistrate has not himself filed affidavit to explain how on the facts placed before him by the Police he was satisfied to give the detention order for maintenance of public order. To support this, he placed Golap Mehra v. Slate of U.P. AIR 1987 SC 2232. There the District Magistrate passed the detention order U/S 3 of the Act on police report without knowing that the man was already in judicial custody. The District Magistrate did not file but the police officer filed affidavit stating that the District Magistrate passed the order on apprehension that the person was likely to be released on bail in the near future and if he is bailed out, the public problems would become more. It was held that the detention order was invalid. Mr. Imo Singh, learned Advocate General, however, tried hard to support the order, submitting that the fact that there are three cases against the petitioner was sufficient to uphold the detention. He placed Yogendra Murari v. State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 1835 wherein it was held that if the order was passed on the basis of 3(three) incidents the facts that some of the incidents did not relate to public order cannot be the ground for quashing the order. In our opinion, the petitioner's case is even better than the case of Golap Mehra (Supra) because the petitioner not only was already in police custody but he was also a patient on medical treatment. The filing of affidavit by the District Magistrate, Imphal, was, therefore, necessary to clarify whether he passed the order knowing these facts. 10. The next point which Mr. The filing of affidavit by the District Magistrate, Imphal, was, therefore, necessary to clarify whether he passed the order knowing these facts. 10. The next point which Mr. Chonjohn Singh has urged is that the photostat copies of many of the documents which are furnished to him are blurred and cannot be read and because of this, the petitioner could not make an effective repre­sentation. The Respondents in their affidavit-in- opposition stated that this was false and fabricated because the petitioner did not make such statement in his repre­sentation, Normally, we would accept this statement on facts because the deponent is a responsible officer. But in the instant case, we find that the statement is not correct because the petitioner made this as one of the grounds in his representation. That apart, we find that Annexure A/2 (9), Annexure-A/2(6), Annexure-A/2(17) and Annexure-A/2( 18) are really blurred and cannot be read. This cannot be said to be fabricated because they contained the attested signature of the District Magistrate with seal. Mr. Chonjohn Singh relies on Bhupinder Singh v Union of India (1987) 2 SCC 234 . There it was held that where copies of documents supplied are illegible, the detenue was clearly denied of opportunity of making representation and there was a clear contradiction of the rights guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution. 11. The third point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the party founded by the petitioner is a registered political party and not confined to the community of Meiteis and it has not been banned by the State. He submitted that even assuming, while denying, that its members speak against the Muslims and non-Manipuris that would be no ground for detention of the petitioner. To support this, he placed Sri Dohawla v. D. M. Lunglei, 1983 (1) GLR 461. In that case, it was held that for allowing the holding of meeting of M.N.F. Day in the house of detenu in which all M.N.F. hostile to Lunglei town duly attended while the MNF was not declared unlawful a person could be detained under the Act. In S. B. Chose v ArifAli, AIR 1974 SC 258 also, it was held that speaking ill of Assamese people and Assam Government by itself does not affect the public order. 12. In S. B. Chose v ArifAli, AIR 1974 SC 258 also, it was held that speaking ill of Assamese people and Assam Government by itself does not affect the public order. 12. Lastly, it is not disputed that the petitioner is a very sick person and he need better treatment outside the jail. The State Advisory Board has suggested for taking him to A. 1.1. M. S. at New Delhi for the treatment. Respondents also stated in the affidavit that the Director of Health Services, Manipur, has sent report of the Medical Board along with the X-Ray, Ultra Sonography etc. to the Central jail. 13. For all the reasons stated above, we are clearly of the view that quashing of the detention order in question is a must. Accordingly, we allow the petition and quash the order dated 22.4.93 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal and approved by the Government of Manipur on 3.5.93 and direct the Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail to release the petitioner (Bisheswar Singh) from jail forthwith. 14. The Rule is made absolute but we made no order as to costs.