M.BK, J.:- Heard Mr. Dolen Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Th.Ibohal, learned Addl. G.A. appearing on behalf of the State respondents and Mr. N.Ibotombi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying mainly for setting aside the order of detention dated 23.2.06 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West Manipur as well as its approval order dated 4.3.06 and confirmation order dated 7.4.06 passed by the State Govt. under which the petitioner has been in detention under the National Security Act,1980( hereinafter refers to NSA), 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 order was approved by the State Government vide the impugned order dated 4.3.06. Thereafter, the State Government vide the impugned order dated 7.4.06 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. One of the grounds submitted by the learned counsel of the petitioner challenging the said detention under NSA is that there is unexplained delay on the part of the respondent No.1 in considering the representation of the petitioner. 4. In this connection, we have heard petitioner's counsel as well as the Addl.G.A. at length. There is no dispute that on 10.3.06, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent No.1 through the Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal (the respondent No.3) requesting to revoke/quash the impugned detention order. As per affidavit in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents-1 and 3 the said representation was received by the State Government only on 17.3.06 and after careful consideration of it on 21.3.06, the concerned authority communicated the result of the said consideration to the detenu and the same was received by him on 24.3.06. No reason is given as to why and how the said representation submitted on 10.3.06 to the Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail, was received by the State Government only on 17.3.06. It is, however, ascertained that 11th , 12th , 14th , 15th and 16th of March, 2006 were holidays. In between 10th and 17th March, 2006 only the 13th March, 2006 was working day. Further, 19th March, 2006 was also holiday. It is, however, ascertained that 11th , 12th , 14th , 15th and 16th of March, 2006 were holidays. In between 10th and 17th March, 2006 only the 13th March, 2006 was working day. Further, 19th March, 2006 was also holiday. We have also perused the file No.17 (1)990/06-II Home Department Manipur produced by the learned Addl. G.A. We do not think that there has been any inordinate delay in considering the representation of the petitioner by the State Government. Merely on the basis of the failure of the respondent Nos-1 and 3 to mention about the said facts in their affidavit in-opposition, one cannot conclude that there has been inordinate delay in considering the representation of the petitioner. Further, though the State Government took its decision on 21.3.06 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for revocation of the detention order, the petitioner was informed about it on 24.3.06, i.e., after two days of making the decision. On the basis of the said delay in communicating the result of the said representation to the petitioner, we do not think that it will be reasonable to conclude that there has been inordinate delay or indifference in considering the representation of the petitioner by the State Govt. and as such of violation of Art.22 (5) of the Constitution of India. We are of the view that the first ground submitted by the learned counsel of the petitioner is not acceptable and as such it is rejected. 5. The second ground submitted by the petitioner's counsel challenging the detention order is that the Central Government has not considered the report furnished by the State Govt. under section 5(3) of the National Security Act up till now in spite of receiving the said report along with the other documents on 23.3.06. 6. 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 -Vs- State of Assam & Ors, 1984 Cril. Law Journal 1558 wherein the Full Bench, while dealing with exercise of discretionary power of the Central Government u/s 14(1) in the context of section 3(5) of the National Security Act held at para 22 and 23 as follows: “22. Law Journal 1558 wherein the Full Bench, while dealing with exercise of discretionary power of the Central Government u/s 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 Govt. and a different procedure on the report received from 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.” 7. We have also perused the decision of this Court in Somi Angkang -Vs- Union of India 1985 (2) GLR 1 Gopal Boro @ Gwojen Boro Vs. Union of India 2005(3) GLT 33 wherein the above said decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 1984 Cril. Law Journal 1558 has been followed. We have also perused the decision of this Court in Somi Angkang -Vs- Union of India 1985 (2) GLR 1 Gopal Boro @ Gwojen Boro Vs. Union of India 2005(3) GLT 33 wherein the above said decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 1984 Cril. Law Journal 1558 has been followed. On the basis of the said decisions of this Court, it is well settled that discretionary power of the Central Govt. u/s 14(1) of the NSA 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. 8. The question if the Central Government has considered the report received from the State Government u/s 3(5) of the National Security Act is a question of fact. In this regard, there is no allegation from the side of the petitioner about the said non consideration of the report by the Central Govt. in the writ petition itself. Accordingly, nothing is found to have been mentioned in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Government. In fact, at the time of filing its counter affidavit, the Central Government was not in a position to state anything in their counter affidavit about which there was no allegation in the writ petition. It was only after about more than one month of filing of the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent No.4, the petitioner filed his additional affidavit alleging the said fact of non consideration of the report received from the State Government u/s 3(5) of the NSA. In these circumstances, the failure of the Central Government to state anything in their counter affidavit about the said non consideration of the report is understandable. In any case, we have perused the relevant file being No.II/15023/15/06-NSA of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India produced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Government. It is ascertained that the said report of the State Govt. u/s 3(5) of the NSA was received by the concerned Ministry on 23.3.06. In any case, we have perused the relevant file being No.II/15023/15/06-NSA of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India produced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Government. It is ascertained that the said report of the State Govt. u/s 3(5) of the NSA was received by the concerned Ministry on 23.3.06. Further, it is ascertained that the same was brought to the notice of the concerned authority in due course. But no order either modifying or cancelling the detention order was passed and as such, prima facie, the concerned authority 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 concerned authority did not choose to revoke or modify the detention order without anything more does not necessarily lead to the irresistible inference that the concerned authority did not consider or failed to apply its mind as held in John Martin -Vs-State of West Bengal AIR 1975 SC 775 . In the result, the second ground is not also acceptable and we accordingly reject the same. 9. The third ground submitted by the learned counsel is that the order of detention was passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind. However, the learned counsel of the petitioner does not disclose the basis of his said submission. On perusal of the impugned detention order along with the relevant materials such as grounds of the detention, we are of the opinion that this is not a case where the detention order was not supported by any evidence. There was clearly sufficient material before the District Magistrate to justify forming of his opinion for detention of the petitioner. Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is the very basis and/ or foundation of the detention order. The sufficiency of the materials available to the detaining authority is not to be examined by the Court. This Court does not sit on appeal over the detention order and it is not for the Court to go into and assess the probative value of the evidence available to the detaining authority. While dealing with a detention order passed under the prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act (7 of 1980), in Smt. K. Aruna Kumari -Vs- Govt. While dealing with a detention order passed under the prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act (7 of 1980), in Smt. K. Aruna Kumari -Vs- Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 227 , the Supreme Court observed at Para 8 : “…………….. This court while considering the petitioner's writ application is not sitting in appeal over the detention order, and it is not for us to go into and assess the probative value of the evidence available to the detaining authority. Of course, a detention order not supported by any evidence may have to be quashed ……………” 10. In the same case, at para 11 it was further observed,- “……….Besides, it has long been established that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority as regards the factual existence of the conditions on which the order of detention can be made, namely, the grounds of detention constitute the foundation for the exercise of the powers of detention and the Court cannot be invited to consider the propriety or sufficiency of the grounds on which the satisfaction of the detaining authority is based. Nor can the Court, on a review of the grounds, substitute its own opinion for that of the authority……………..” 11. Having regards to the above position of law, which has not been changed, in our present case, we do not find anything to show that the impugned detention order was passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind. The third ground submitted by the petitioner's counsel is also not acceptable. It is accordingly, rejected. 12. In the result, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in respect of the impugned detention order dated 23.2.06 which has been approved and confirmed by the State Government. Accordingly, the prayer of the writ petitioner is rejected and this writ petition is dismissed as having no merit.