M. KATJU, J. We have heard Sri D. S. Mishra learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Counsel. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned detention order dated 27-5-2002 Annexure-1 to the petition passed under the National Security Act. The grounds of detention are given in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 3. The allegations against the petitioner as mentioned in the ground of detention Annexure-2 to the writ petition is that on 18-4-2002 at about 6. 15 p. m. the petitioner and his sons approached one Manoj Kumar Srivastava, Junior Engineer, Allahbad Development Authority and petitioner ordered his son to shoot Manoj Kumar Srivastava, at which the petitioner son Manoj Goswami shot Manoj Kumar Srivastava dead with a rifle. This caused panic in the locality and terror and even tempo of life was affected. 4. It has been firstly submitted by Sri Mishra that the representation to the District Magistrate dated 1- 6-2002 copy of which is Annexure-RA-2 to the rejoinder affidavit has not been decided by the District Magistrate. This allegation has been made in paragraph 39 of the writ petition. 5. In the counter-affidavit of the District Magistrate (in paragraph 20) it is stated that the representation of the petitioner addressed to the District Magistrate was considered and in view of the facts and circumstances the same was not accepted. We asked learned Government Counsel whether the District Magistrate has passed any order rejecting the petitioners representation but it appears that there is no such order. Hence we are of the opinion that in fact the representation of the petitioner to the District Magistrate was not decided by the District Magistrate. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Idrish v. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, 2002 (2) JIC 65 (Al): 2002 U. P. Crl. Rulings 718 (vide paragraph 4) that the power of the District Magistrate in deciding the representation of the detenue is completely independent of the power of the State Government in granting approval. It was the duty of the District Magistrate to have decided the petitioners representation made to him on the merits of that representation. 6. In Idrishs case (supra) the District Magistrate had rejected the representation because of the earlier approval of the State Government of the detention order. In the present case the District Magistrate has not even decided the representation dated 1-6-2002. 6. In Idrishs case (supra) the District Magistrate had rejected the representation because of the earlier approval of the State Government of the detention order. In the present case the District Magistrate has not even decided the representation dated 1-6-2002. In Kamlesh Kumar v. Union of India, 1995 SCC (Crl.) 643, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the right of the detenue to make representation to the District Magistrate is in addition to his right to make representation to the State Government and Central Government. Obviously when the detenue makes a representation to the District Magistrate the District Magistrate must apply his mind and decide the representation but in the present case the District Magistrate has not decided the same. 7. Hence, in view of this Courts decision in Idrishs case (supra) which has followed the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharastra v. Santosh, 2000 (41) ACC 704, the submission of Sri Mishra appears to be correct. 8. Sri Mishra then submitted that the petitioners Counsel (Sri D. S. Mishra) had sent the representation dated 1-6-2002 (referred to above) by Speed Post to the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate received the same on the same day. The District Magistrate forwarded the representation to the State Government vide letter dated 17-6-2002 and it was received by the State Government on 18-6-2002. Thus there was a delay of 16 days on the part of the District Magistrate in forwarding the representation to the State Government. This too, in our opinion, vitiates the detention order, because it is well settled that there should not be inordinate delay in dealing with the representation. 9. Sri Mishra thirdly submitted that relevant materials were not placed before the detaining authority, the District Magistrate, as stated in paragraphs 35 and 36 of the writ petition. This relevant material consisted of the bail rejection order in the case of the petitioner, the bail order granted to the co- accused Sanjay Goswami, and the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunita Goswami (copy of which is Annexure-RA-9 to the rejoinder affidavit ). This fact is also not disputed by the respondents. This relevant material consisted of the bail rejection order in the case of the petitioner, the bail order granted to the co- accused Sanjay Goswami, and the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunita Goswami (copy of which is Annexure-RA-9 to the rejoinder affidavit ). This fact is also not disputed by the respondents. Hence, in our opinion this also vitiates the impugned order, as it is settled law that the relevant material must be placed before the detaining authority vide Inamul Haq v. Adhikshak Mandal/janpad Karagar, Habeas Corpus Petition No. 52650 of 2001 decided on 22-5-2001 (which decision has referred to several Supreme Court and High Court decisions on the point ). Sri Mishra has also submitted that petitioner is a man 75 years of age and is a heart patient. This averment has been made in paragraph 37 of the writ petition and the relevant medical certificates are Annexure-RA-8 to the rejoinder affidavit. In paragraph 18 of the counter-affidavit of the District Magistrate it is stated that proper treatment is being provided to the petitioner, whenever and when it is advised by the Doctor, but it is not disputed that he is an old man and heart patient. Sri Mishra has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Manilal Manoharbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and others, 1999 SCC (Cri) 3121, in support of this contention that the detention order should be set aside on this ground that decision was given in relation to the Gujarat Prevention of Anti- Social Activities Act, 1985. We have seen that Act, and the provisions of the same appear to be in pari materia with that of the National Security Act. Hence, this submission on this point also is correct. 10. It is not necessary to go into other submissions of Sri Mishra. For the reasons given above the petition is allowed. Impugned detention order is quashed. The petitioner shall be released forthwith unless required in some other criminal or preventive detention case. Petition allowed. .