Binoykumar, J. The petitioner who is the husband of the detenue, Smt. Yumnam Ongbi Pishakmacha Devi, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the detention order dated 23/8/2004 issued by the District Magistrate, Bishenpur under National Security Act (NSA) and the continued detention of the detenue consequent upon the approval and confirmation of it by the State Government on 31/8/2004 and 5/10/2004 respectively. 2. We have heard Mr. N. Surendrajit Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Jalal, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State Respondents and Mr. N. Ibotombi learned C.G.S.C. for the Union of India. The said detention order was purportedly made after considering the past activities of the detenue as a General Secretary of the Ayanglam Nupi Kanglup (Meira Paibies), Ngaikhong Siphai and potential danger of her activities to the maintenance of public order and security of the State and also the likelihood of her continuing such activities the moment she was released from detention. 3. The only ground of challenge submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite submission of representations by the petitioner to the Government of Manipur as well as to the Govt. of India praying for revocation/cancellation of the detention order through the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Manipur Central Jail (Sajiwa), his said representations have not been considered uptil now. According to the petitioner, the representation addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur was received by the Addl. S.P. Central Jail (Sajiwa) under R.R. No.440 dated 14/9/2004 at 2 P.M. and the other representation addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of Internal Security, Govt. of India) was also received by the same Addl. S.P. Central Jail under R.R. No.441 dated 14/9/2004 at 2 P.M. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the failure on the part of the concerned authorities to consider the representations within reasonable time has vitiated the detention. In this connection, the plea of the State respondents is to the effect that the representation was not received. The plea of the Union of India (Respondent No.3) is that no representation from or on behalf of the detenue has been received in the concerned desk of Ministry of Home Affairs till today and as such no question of making any delay in consideration of any representation can arise. 4. The plea of the Union of India (Respondent No.3) is that no representation from or on behalf of the detenue has been received in the concerned desk of Ministry of Home Affairs till today and as such no question of making any delay in consideration of any representation can arise. 4. In order to verify the correctness or otherwise of the alleged fact of submission of the said representations to the Addl. S.P. Central Jail, Sajiwa on 14/9/2004 vide Receipt Nos. 440 and 441, we have called the relevant Receipt Register of the office of the Addl. S.P. Central Jail, Sajiwa. On the basis of the said Register, the learned Addl. Government Advocate admits that the said two representations were received on 14/9/2004 under R.R. Nos. 440 and 441. We have also perused the relevant entries. It is, thus, ascertained that the said representations were, in fact, submitted through the Addl. S.P. Central Jail, Sajiwa on 14/9/2004. At the same time, it is already seen that as per pleadings of the respondents, they have not received any representation and as such there cannot be any question of delay in disposing any representation. 5. The detenue was informed, vide the ground of detention dated 27/8/2004 (Annexure-A/5) furnished to him to the effect that the representations to the State Government and to the Central Government could be made through the S.P. Central Jail, Sajiwa. Accordingly, on submission of the said two representations addressed to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur and Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of Internal Security, Govt. of India), to the Addl.S.P. Central Jail, Sajiwa, vide the above said Receipt Numbers on 14/9/2004, it is to be taken that the representations have been submitted to the State Government and the Central Government from the side of the detenue. In the facts and circumstances, it is concluded that despite submission of representations both to the State Government and to the Central Government from the side of the detenue, the representations have not been considered and disposed of by the concerned authorities. 6. The failure on the part of the concerned authority to consider the said representation is violative of the Constitutional right of the detenue given by Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the detention of the detenue is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. The failure on the part of the concerned authority to consider the said representation is violative of the Constitutional right of the detenue given by Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the detention of the detenue is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned detention order and the subsequent approval and confirmation of it are hereby quashed. The detenue, Smt. YUMNAM ONGBI PISHAKMACHA DEVI, is to be released forthwith unless she is required to be detained in connection with any other case. 7. In the present case, it has come to the notice of this Court that despite submission of two representations, one meant for the State Govt. and the another meant for the Central Government through the Addl. S.P. Central Jail, Sajiwa, the concerned authorities have not received the representations. This is a serious matter requiring immediate necessary steps on the part of the concerned authority of this State so that such flaws should not be repeated in future. We are of the opinion that there has been indifference or callousness on the part of some officials who are assigned with the works of placing such representations before the concerned authorities. As a result of such indifference or callousness, there has been a breach of constitutional mandate of Art. 22(5). Liberty of a person guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution is a cherished right and it can be deprived only in accordance with law. What has happened in this case is that the right guaranteed by the Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India to the detenue has been made ineffective due to lapses, indifference or callousness on the part of some officials who are directly concerned with placing of such representations to the concerned authorities. Having regard to all the relevant considerations, we direct that the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur will look into the matter and take necessary steps in order to ensure that such failure to place the representation of a detenue before the concerned authority is not repeated in future. I agree.