(ORAL) T. Nandakumar Singh, J. - By this writ petition the petitioner detenu is assailing the detention order dated 12.10.09 issued by the District Magistrate, Bishnupur in exercise of the power conferred upon him under sub-section 2 of Section 3 of National Security Act, 1980 read with Government of Manipur, Home Department's order No. 17(1) 49/80- (Pt-I) dated 10.8.09, the approval order of the State Government dated 21.10.09 as well as the confirmation order dated 30.11.09. 2. Heard Mr. Kh. Mani Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner detenu, Mr. A. Modhuchandra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 as well as Mr. C. Komol, learned CGSC appearing for the respondent No. 3. 3. At the very outset of hearing Mr. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner detenu strenuously urges that the present writ petition is squarely covered by other judgment and order of this Court (Division Bench) dated 5.4.2010passedin WP(Cril)No. 89of2009, operative portion of which read as follows: "[13] In regard to 2nd ground in the present writ petition, we are of considered view that the District Magistrate under his letter dated 22.6.2009 has misinformed the petitioner/detenu inasmuch as the petitioner/detenu could make representation before the detaining authority within 12 days from the date of detention order and not from the issue of ground of detention. Reference may be made to the decision of this Court (five Judges) in Konsam Brojen Singh @ Basan @ Sekhar @ Suraj @ Sainthel @ Basanta @ Inaotomba Vs. State of Manipur&Ors.: 2006 (1) GLT 375 (FB). Therefore, because of misinformation by the District Magistrate under letter dated 22.6.2009, continued detention of the petitioner/detenu under the NSA is also illegal. (14) For the foregoing discussion, the detention order dated 18.06.09, approval order dated 27.6.09 and confirmation order dated 6.8.09 are illegal and, accordingly, set aside. The petitioner/detenu be set at liberty forthwith if she is not wanted in any other case. Writ petition is allowed." in view of the present case mentioned hereinunder. 4. The petitioner/detenu was arrested on 3.10.09 in the evening by a combined team of CDO, Bishnupur and 21 Paramilitary force and handed over to the O.C. Nambol Police Station. It is also alleged that the petitioner/detenu was implicated in connection with the FIR Case No. 76 (10) 2009 Nambol P.S. under Sections 121/121-A/307/326/427 IPC. 25 (I-C) A, Act, 20/16 UA (P) A Act and 5 Expl. It is also alleged that the petitioner/detenu was implicated in connection with the FIR Case No. 76 (10) 2009 Nambol P.S. under Sections 121/121-A/307/326/427 IPC. 25 (I-C) A, Act, 20/16 UA (P) A Act and 5 Expl. Subs. Act and remanded him to police custody till 12.10.09. 5. The District Magistrate issued the impugned detention order to the petitioner/detenu while he was in custody in connection with the said FIR. As stated above, the detention order dated 12.10.09 was issued by the District Magistrate, Bishnupur in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the NSA, 1980 read with Government of Manipur, Home Department's order No. 17 (1) 497 SO-(Pt-I) dated 10.8.09. As the said detention order was issued by the District Magistrate under sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the NSA, the detention order shall remain in force for not more than 12 days from the date of issuance of such detention order by virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the NSA. Subsequently, detention order issued by the learned District Magistrate, Bishnupur was also approved and confirmed by the State Government vide order dated 21.10.09 and 30.11.09 respectively. 6. The learned District Magistrate, Bishnupur under his letter being No. Cril.21/NSA/DM-BPR/2009: Bishnupur the 16th October, 2009 furnished the grounds of detention and also informed the petitioner detenu about his right to make representation against the detention order. For easy reference, para 6 of the said letter of the District Magistrate dated 16.10.09 is reproduced below: "6. That, you are hereby informed that you have the right to make representation before the detaining authority within 12 days from the issue of the ground of detention. You also have the right to make representation to the Government of Manipur against the order of detention passed against you and you are hereby afforded to do so. The representation is to be addressed to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Manipur through the Addl. Superintendent Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa and should be submitted within 3 (three) weeks from the date of detention. The representation, if any shall be placed before the Advisory Board within 3(three) weeks from the date of detention and such order/documents/papcrs connected with your detention as the Government is bound under the law to be produced before the Board for its consideration. The representation, if any shall be placed before the Advisory Board within 3(three) weeks from the date of detention and such order/documents/papcrs connected with your detention as the Government is bound under the law to be produced before the Board for its consideration. It is also emphasised that if you wish to make any representation to the Central Government you may send the same at the following address through the Addl. Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa." 7. On bare perusal of the sub-section 4 of Section 3 of NSA, it is crystal clear that the type of detention order impugned in the present writ petition issued by the learned District Magistrate, Bishnupur, shall remain valid upto the maximum period of 12 days from the date of issue of the impugned detention order. It is the mandate of the Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India that earliest opportunity should be given to the petitioner/detenu to file effective representation against the detention order. 8. It is now well settled principle of law that the procedure prescribed in the statute regarding detention of citizen should not only be jealously guarded but also should strictly be followed. For this settled principle of law, we are not required to burden ourselves by referring to the catena of decisions of this Court as well as of the Apex Court. 9. Mr. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner/detenu, by relying on the decision of the Special Bench of this Court (five Judges) passed in Konsam Brojen Singh @ Basan @ Sekhar @ Suraj @ Sainthel @ Basanta @ Inaotomba Vs. State of Manipur & Ors. : 2006 (1) GLT375 (FB). strenuously urges that the petitioner/detenu has the right to make representation against the detention order passed by the learned District Magistrate to the detaining authority, i.e. District Magistrate, within a period of 12 days from the date of issue of the detention order. This point of law has not been disputed by Mr. Modhuchandra. learned G. A. appearing for the respondents. 10. This point of law has not been disputed by Mr. Modhuchandra. learned G. A. appearing for the respondents. 10. As stated above, it is crystal clear that the petitioner/detenu had been misinformed about the period within which petitioner/detenu has to file representation against the detention order issued by the District Magistrate to the detaining authority, i.e. District Magistrate, Bishnupur vide his letter dated 16.10.09, relevant portion of which is quoted above, for the reason that under the accepted principle of law the petitioner/detenu has the right to file representation against the detention order to the detaining authority within 12 days from the date of passing the detention order and not from the date of issuance of the ground of detention order. Because of the misinformation regarding the procedure contemplated in the National Security Act in filing the representation against the detention order to the detaining authority, i.e. the District Magistrate, we are of the considered view that the procedure prescribed in the NSA is neither followed nor jealously guarded in the instant case. Therefore, continued detention of the petitioner/detenu under the impugned detention order, the approval order and the confirmation order are not legal. 11. Accordingly, we have no alternative except to interfere with the detention order; in the result, the detention order dated 12.10.09, the approval order dated 21.10.09 and the confirmation order dated 30.11.09 are hereby quashed. The petitioner/detenu, namely, Yambem Biren Meitei shall be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in connection with any other case. This writ petition is disposed of.