MBK, J.:- This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying mainly for setting aside the order of detention dated 29.12.2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West , Manipur as well as its confirmation order dated 09.2.2006 passed by the State Government. 2. The impugned order dated 29.12.2005 was passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur directing to detain Ngapa Maram under the National Security Act until further order purportedly with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The State Government approved the said detention order dated 07.1.2006. Thereafter, the State Government, vide the impugned order dated 9.2.2006, confirmed the said detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur and fixed the period of detention as 12 months from the date of detention. 3. Heard Mr.Ch.Ngongo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.R.S.Reisang, learned Addl.GA for the respondents 1,2, and 3 as well as Mr. K.Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4. We have also perused the materials before the court including the relevant files produced on behalf of the respondent No.4 and the Government respondents. 4. 3(three) main grounds have been submitted by the petitioner's counsel challenging the legality of the impugned detention order dated 29.12.2005 and its confirmation order dated 09.2.2006. They are : (1) that the respondent No.4 did not consider under section 14 of the National Security Act on the report sent by the respondent No.2 under section 3(5) of the National Security Act ; (2) that the respondent No.2 did not forward the approved report to the respondent No.4 as required under section 3(5) of the National Security Act ; (3) that even if there was consideration of the report submitted under section 3(5) of the National Security Act it was not done with reasonable expedition. 5. We have considered the submissions of the petitioner's counsel in the light of the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Hitendra Nath Goswami v. State of Assam and ors, 1984 Cril.L.J. 1558 wherein the Full Bench, while dealing with the exercise of discretionary power of the Central Government under section 14(1) in the context of section 3(5) of the National Security Act held at Para 22 and 23 as follows :- “22. It is for the Central Government to revoke or not the detention order in exercise of its discretionary power under S.14 (1) of the Act, on receipt of the report from the State Government; but to borrow the words of Lord Pearce in Padfield's case (1968-1 All ER 694), the Central Government cannot 'throw it unread into the waste paper basket'. The report is intended to be considered with reasonable expedition; any delay in the matter due to negligence, callous inaction, avoidable red-tapism and unduly protracted procrastination would defeat the intention of the Parliament. See Sabir Ahmed (1980-3 SCC 295) (supra). As such, non consideration of the report by the Central Government with expedition would be a breach of the procedural safeguard provided by the Act, as an additional check against the improper exercise of power of detention by the detaining authority and thereby violate Art. 21. It is a case where the Central Government may be considered to have failed to understand the object and scope of S. 14(1) read with S.3 (5) of the Act and of its function and duties thereunder. 23. To construe otherwise will also attract the vice of arbitrariness and unfairness which are the sworn enemies of equality guaranteed under Art. 14 of the Constitution, one procedure on representation made by the detenu to the Government and a different procedure on the report received form the State Government under S.3(5) of the Act. I may recall here the statement of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India , AIR 1978 SC 597 , where it is laid down that ' the procedure must be right and just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive , otherwise it would be no procedure at all and requirement of Art. 21 would not be satisfied'.” 6. We have also perused the decisions of this court in Somi Angkang v. Union of India , 1985 (2) GLR 1 and Gopal Boro @ Gwojen Boro v. Union of India and ors, 2005 (3)GLT 33 wherein the above said decision of the Full Bench of this court reported in 1984 Cri.L.J. 1558 has been followed. We have also perused the decisions of this court in Somi Angkang v. Union of India , 1985 (2) GLR 1 and Gopal Boro @ Gwojen Boro v. Union of India and ors, 2005 (3)GLT 33 wherein the above said decision of the Full Bench of this court reported in 1984 Cri.L.J. 1558 has been followed. On the basis of the said decision of this court, it is well settled that the discretionary power of the Central Government u/s 14(1) of the National Security Act in the context of section 3(5) of the same Act is coupled with duty to consider the report received from the State Government with reasonable expedition, notwithstanding that no representation /petition has been made by the detenu to the Central Government and in case of breach of such procedural safeguards, the detention order is liable to be set aside and the detenu is to be set at his liberty. 7. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.4, nothing is found to have been mentioned regarding the allegation of non-consideration of the report of the State Government submitted u/s 3(5) of the Act. As per the said counter-affidavit of the respondent No.4, the said report was received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs in North Block on 24.1.2006 and in the concerned section in the Ministry of Home Affairs in Lok Nayak Bhavan on 27.01.2006 (26.01.2006 was holiday being Republic Day). 8. Further, on the basis of the relevant file produced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4, we find that the report of the State Government u/s 3(5) of the National Security Act was sent vide letter No.17(1)/983/2005-H dated 10.01.2006 along with - (1) a copy of the report of District Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur , (2) a copy of the detention order dated 29.12.2005, (3) a copy of the grounds for detention with relevant records and (4) a copy of Government order dated 7.01.2006 approving the detention order of the District Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur dated 29.12.2005. As per the said file, the said letter and its enclosures were received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi on 24.01.2006. As per the said file, the said letter and its enclosures were received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi on 24.01.2006. It is also ascertained that the report of the State Government made u/s 3(5) of the National Security Act was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities on 16.2.2006. But no order either modifying or canceling the detention order was passed and as such, prima-facie, the Central Government did not, after applying its mind, consider that any interference was warranted in respect of the detention order. Merely on the basis of the fact that the Central Government did not choose to revoke or modify the detention order without anything more does not necessarily lead to the irresistible inference that the Central Government did not consider or fail to apply its mind as held in John Martin v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 775 . There is also no sufficient basis for concluding that the said report of the State Government was not dealt with reasonable expedition. 9. In our present case, apart from consideration of the report of the State Government submitted u/s 3(5) of the National Security Act, a representation of the detenu dated 23.1.2006 addressed to the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-110001 was received by the Ministry of Home Affairs , New Delhi on 7.2.2006 i.e. even before putting up of the report of the State Government u/s 3(5) of the National Security Act . The said representation of the detenu was forwarded by the Special Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur on 27.1.2006. As per records, the said report was also dealt by the concerned authorities without any inordinate delay and the same was rejected. 10. On the basis of the materials before the court, we are of the opinion that the impugned detention order dated 29.12.2005 and the impugned confirmation order dated 09.2.2006 are not liable to be interfered with on any of the grounds submitted on behalf of the petitioner. In the result, the prayer of the writ petitioner is rejected and this writ petition is dismissed as having no merit.