In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the detention of his son, Akham Ranjan Singh, under the National Security Act, 1980, in short, NSA. 2. We have heard Mr. Santa Khaidem, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Jalal, learned Addl. G.A. appearing on behalf of the respondents-2 to 4 and Mr. K. Kumar learned Addl. CGSC appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1. 3. There is no dispute in respect of the following facts: by an order passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West District, Manipur purportedly in exercise of his powers conferred under section 3(3) of the N.S.A., on 23.5.2005, the said Ranjan Singh was ordered to be detained under the Act purportedly with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. The said detention was approved by the State Government, vide order passed on 31.5.05. Then, on 17.6.05, the State Government confirmed the detention of the said Ranjan Singh and fixed the period of detention as 12 months from the date of detention. 3. The only ground submitted by the learned counsel of the petitioner as the ground vitiating the detention of the said Ranjan Singh under the N.S.A. is that the said Ranjan Singh submitted a representation addressed to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs through the Additional Superintendent of Jail, Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa on 6.6.05, but the same has not yet been disposed of. 4. In this connection, as per counter affidavit submitted to this Court on 30.8.05 on behalf of the respondent No.1, no representation from or on behalf of the detenu was received by the concerned official of the Ministry of Home Affairs till then. In the affidavit in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents-2 and 3 also, it is said that though representation addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur was received and rejected after consideration, no representation addressed to the Secretary, Govt. of India has been received. Thus, as per pleadings of the Central Government, it has not received any representation of the detenu and also as per pleadings of the State Government, it has not received any representation and as such it has not also forwarded any representation of the detenu to the Central Government. 5. of India has been received. Thus, as per pleadings of the Central Government, it has not received any representation of the detenu and also as per pleadings of the State Government, it has not received any representation and as such it has not also forwarded any representation of the detenu to the Central Government. 5. As per additional affidavit filed by the petitioner on 31.10.05, his son, Akham Ranjan filed on 6.6.05 two representations, one addressed to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of Internal Security), North Block, Delhi-1100 01 and another addressed to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur through the Additional Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa, praying for cancellation/revocation of the detention order. According to the petitioner, the Additional Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa forwarded the said representations of the detenu to the Special Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur vide office letter No.5/46/98-CJS9158) Sajiwa dated 6.6.05, and a copy of the forwarding letter was received by his son. Annexure-A/8 is said to be photo copy of the said forwarding letter of the Additional Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa. 6. Having regards to the pleadings of the parties, it has become necessary to decide if the detenu, in fact, submitted a representation addressed to the Secretary to the Government of India or not and if yes, whether it was sent to the Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur by the Additional Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa along with the representation addressed to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur for further necessary action or not. 7. We have perused the affidavit submitted by Mr. WUNGKHAI PHANITPHANG TANGKHUL, who has been working ad Additional Superintendent(in-charge), Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa on direction of this Court as well as a Receipt Register certified to be containing 297 single leaves, 1 Issue Register certified to be containing 317 single leaves and 1 Peon Book produced by him. At the same time, we have perused the official files being No.17 (1)891/2005-H and criminal/NSA/No.62/05 produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate. 8. The stand taken by the respondents-2 and 3 to the effect that only the representation of the said Ranjan Singh addressed to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur was received by the office of the Special Secretary(Home), Govt. 8. The stand taken by the respondents-2 and 3 to the effect that only the representation of the said Ranjan Singh addressed to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur was received by the office of the Special Secretary(Home), Govt. of Manipur as forwarded by the Additional Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa and that no representation addressed to the Secretary to the Govt. of India was received is supported by the relevant entries made in the official file No.17/1/891/2005-H and documents found therein. As per forwarding letter bearing No.5/46/98-CJS;/1090, dated 6.6.05 only the representation of the said Ranjan Singh addressed to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur was forwarded to the Special Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur by the Additional Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa. In the Government file, there is nothing to show about receiving any representation of the said detenu addressed to the Secretary, to the Govt. of India. So far as the said representation addressed to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur is concerned, the concerned authority duly considered and rejected it. The detenu was also duly informed vide letter No.17 (1)891/2005-H dated 8.6.05. We do not find any appreciable reason as to why had the said representation addressed to the Secretary(Home), Govt. of Manipur, the said fact would not have been reflected in the relevant office file. 9. Though on the basis of the records in the Government file being No.17(1)891/2005-H the office of the Special Secretary(Home), Govt. of Manipur received only the representation of the detenu addressed to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur as forwarded by the Additional Superintendent of Central Jail, Sajiwa vide letter No.5/46/98-CJS(158);/1090 dated 6.6.05, as per pleadings of the petitioner in his additional affidavit, the detenu was informed vide the letter of the Addl. Superintendent of Central Jail, Sajiwa bearing the same number mentioned above about forwarding of two representations, one addressed to the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and the another addressed to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur. A copy of the said forwarding letter is filed by the petitioner as Annexure-A/8. The above said letter (Annexure-A/8) is in conflict with the forwarding letter bearing the same number and date said to have been received by the office of the Special Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur under which only the representation addressed to the Chief Secretary was received. 10. The above said letter (Annexure-A/8) is in conflict with the forwarding letter bearing the same number and date said to have been received by the office of the Special Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur under which only the representation addressed to the Chief Secretary was received. 10. Finding of two different letters bearing the same reference number and date creates a suspicion in our mind that there is a wrong somewhere in respect of the alleged representation addressed to the Secretary, Govt. of India. It is a matter of common knowledge that the purpose of giving a reference number to a letter is for identification of it. In case same reference number is to be given to two different letters, the said purpose is not served. In this connection, Mr.Wungkhai Phanitphang Tangkhul, Additional Superintendent(in-charge), Central Jail, Sajiwa states in his affidavit that on 6.6.05 his office received two forwarding letters from one S.Naobi Singh, advocate, one was for forwarding the representation of the said detenu to the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and another was for forwarding the representations of the said detenu to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur and to the Advisory Board, N.S.A. and that on the same day, i.e., 6.6.05, the three representations were forwarded to the Special Secretary (Home) after obtaining signature of the detenu vide two different letters bearing the same memo No.5/46/98-CJS(158)/1090 dated 6.6.05. It is to be noted that the petitioner states only about two representations of the detenue. 11. The said W.Phanitphang Tangkhul produces two letters said to be copies of the said two different letters bearing the same same memo number, one is at page 6 and the another is at page 8 in his affidavit. The letter at page 6 in his affidavit is purportedly for forwarding two representations of the detenu, one addressed to the Secretary, Govt. of India and another addressed to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur. The letter at page 8 of the affidavit of the said W.Phanitphang Tangkhul is purportedly for forwarding one representation addressed to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur. of India and another addressed to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur. The letter at page 8 of the affidavit of the said W.Phanitphang Tangkhul is purportedly for forwarding one representation addressed to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur. None of the said letters is for forwarding any representation addressed to the Advisory Board, N.S.A. If the version given by Mr.W. Phanitphang Thangkhul is to be accepted as the correct one, it is not known as to why and how the said representation of the detenu addressed to the Chief Secretary was forwarded twice- the first is one along with the representation addressed to the Secretary, Central Government by letter at page 6 of the affidavit and the second one by letter at page 8 of the same affidavit. This fact of forwarding the said representation addressed to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur twice by the above said two letters is contrary to the statement of the said Phanitphang Tangkhul made in his affidavit to the effect that the representation addressed to the Advisory Board, N.S.A. were forwarded by one letter and the representation addressed to the Secretary, Central Government was forwarded by another letter bearing the same memo number. It is to be noted that on the basis of the Govt. file being No.17 (1)891/05-H, the letter forwarding the said representation addressed to the Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Manipur is the one letter received by the office of Special Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur. 12. Further, as per the affidavit of Mr.W. Phankitphang Tangkhul, the three representations forwarded by two forwarding letters of S.Naobi Singh, Advocate were received by the Addl. Superintendent, Central Jail, Sajiwa on 6.6.05 and the fact of receipt of the said representations is reflected in R.R. No.809 dated 6.6.05 of the Receipt Register. We have perused the relevant entries and we are of the opinion that the entries regarding the receipt of the representation addressed to the Chief Secretary and the Advisory Board, N.S.A. are clearly made but entries regarding receipt of the representation addressed to the Secretary, Govt. of India were purportedly made subsequently. This fact also strengthens our suspicion that there is something wrong so far as the representation said to be addressed to the Secretary, Govt. of India is concerned. 13. We have perused the Issue Register maintained by the office of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Sajiwa. of India were purportedly made subsequently. This fact also strengthens our suspicion that there is something wrong so far as the representation said to be addressed to the Secretary, Govt. of India is concerned. 13. We have perused the Issue Register maintained by the office of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Sajiwa. The relevant entries are found at 1090 dated 6.6.05 of the Issue Register. The said entries do not disclose that two forwarding letters have been issued under the same number. 14. One more strange circumstance is that there is no Receipt Coupon in connection with the delivery of the alleged two forwarding letters to the office of the Special Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur. There is no dispute that in normal course, had the said two letters bearing the same memo been delivered to the concerned office, there must be Receipt Coupon in that regard in the Receipt Book maintained by the concerned Peon. 15. Keeping in views all the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there is reasonable doubt about the fact if any representation of the detenu addressed to the Secretary, Govt. of India was, in fact, received at the office of the Addl.S.P. Central Jail, Sajiwa and if yes, whether it was forwarded to the Special Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur duly for doing the needful or not. In the absence of sufficient materials for concluding that any representation of the detenu addressed to the Secretary, Govt. of Manipur was, in fact, submitted, in our opinion, it will not be proper on our part to decide that the Central Government has failed to disposed of the alleged representation expeditiously. When the fact of receiving any representation of the detenu addressed to the Secretary, Govt. of India is not established satisfactorily, it will not be just and proper to invalidate the detention orders on the ground that any representation of the detenu addressed to the Secretary, Govt. of India was submitted and that the Central Govt. on its part has failed to dispose the representation expeditiously of the said Akham Ranjan Singh on the said ground submitted on behalf of the petitioner is rejected. 16. of India was submitted and that the Central Govt. on its part has failed to dispose the representation expeditiously of the said Akham Ranjan Singh on the said ground submitted on behalf of the petitioner is rejected. 16. Having regard to the peculiar circumstances which we have found in the case, we consider that it will be proper to direct the Jail Authorities to take appropriate steps so that the records connected with receipt and forwarding of representation of detenu under N.S.A. are maintained properly and correctly. The statement given by W.Phanitphang Tangkhul, Addl. S.P. (In-charge) Central Jail, Sajiwa to the effect that two different letters were sent from his office under the same memo number sounds ridiculous. We have already observed that entries in the relevant Receipt Registrar regarding the receipt of the representation addressed to the Secretary, Govt. of India are of doubtful nature subsequently make/added after recording the receipt of representations addressed to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur and to the Advisory Board, N.S.A. There is possibility that some interested persons manage to manipulate the official records to serve their ulterior motive. In case, the concerned detenu submitted his representation addressed to the the Secretary, Govt. of India, the concerned Jail authority should have taken appropriate steps for ensuring that it was forwarded to the concerned without delay. Apart from unsatisfactory state of official records of the office of the Addl. SP, Central Jail, Sajiwa to show satisfactorily that the said representation addressed to the Secretary, Govt. of India was, in fact, received by the office, there is also no satisfactory record to show that the said representation was, in fact, delivered to the office of the Special Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur. No official record to show that the said representation was handed over to the Special Secretary through ALUN KUKI, Peon for delivery to the office of the Special Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur as claimed by the Additional S.P.(in-charge) of the Central Jail, Sajiwa is produced. It is already ascertained that there is also no receipt coupon in respect of the said representation in the Receipt Book of the Peon. All these are to be brought to the notice of the Inspector General (Prison), Govt. of Manipur as claimed by the Additional S.P.(in-charge) of the Central Jail, Sajiwa is produced. It is already ascertained that there is also no receipt coupon in respect of the said representation in the Receipt Book of the Peon. All these are to be brought to the notice of the Inspector General (Prison), Govt. of Manipur by sending a copy of his order so that he may take appropriate remedial action as regards 8 maintenance of official records by the office of the Additional S.P. Central Jail properly and correctly. 17. At the same time, we direct the S.P.(Vigilance), Govt. of Manipur to inquire if any official of the Jail including the Additional S.P. has managed to manipulate the official records to serve his ulterior motive and in the course of it if he has committed any criminal offence or not. The S.P. (Vigilance) is, further, directed that in case of finding sufficient evidence to show that any official of the Jail has committed any offence, appropriate legal action should be initiated against the culprits. The official files/Issue Register, Receipt Register and Peon Book produced in this connection with this case will remain in the custody of the Registrar of this Bench until further orders and the S.P.(Vigilance) and any official authorized by him will be allowed to examine the said records. A copy of this order be also sent to the S.P. (Vigilance) for information and necessary action. 18. With this, this writ petition stands disposed of.