JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Hemchandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.S. Resiang, learned G.A. appearing for the respondent Nos- 1 and 2 as well as Mr. C. Komol, learned CGSC appearing for the respondent No. 3. 2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order of the learned District Magistrate, Imphal West District (detaining authority) being No.Cril/NSA/No.101 of 2011 dated Imphal the 30th August, 2011 directing the petitioner's husband namely, Salam Nabachandra Singh @ Naba @ Rupa @ Ibomcha @ Dinku @ Kenedy to be detained u/section 3(2) of the National Security Act (for short NSA, 1980) until further orders; the order of the State Government being No.17(1)166/2011-H dated Imphal the 9th Sept.2011 for approving the detention order dated 30.8.2011 and also the order of the State Government for confirming the detention order. 3. Sans unnecessary details, the facts sufficient for deciding the present writ petition is noted: on 22.9.2011 at about 6.30 P.M. while the detenu (petitioner's husband) was at his residence at New Checkon, Imphal East, a team of Manipur Police Commando led by SI Ksh. Uttamkumar Singh arrested the petitioner's husband-detenu; and he was taken to Imphal Police Station for an urgent matter. Later on, petitioner's husband-detenu was arrested in connection with FIR Case No.493 (8)11 IPS u/section 17/20 UA (P) A. Act. For that FIR, the detenu was produced before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 24.8.2011 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate remanded the detenu into police custody till 30.08.2011. 4. On 30.8.2011 when the detenu was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in connection with the said FIR case, i.e. FIR No. No.493 (8)11 IPS u/section 17/20 UA (P) A. Act, he was furnished with the copy of the impugned detention order dated 30.08.2011. 5. In pursuance with Section 8 of the NSA,1980 the learned District, Imphal West (detaining authority) under his letter being No.Cril/NSA/101 of 2011 Imphal the 1st Sept.2011 furnished not only the grounds of detention but also copies of the documents which form the basis of the grounds of detention. In the said letter of the District Magistrate, Imphal West dated 1.9.2011 vide para 6 it is clearly stated that the detenu has the right to file representation through the Addl. Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa to the Chief Secretary, Govt. In the said letter of the District Magistrate, Imphal West dated 1.9.2011 vide para 6 it is clearly stated that the detenu has the right to file representation through the Addl. Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur in respect of the representation to the Government of Manipur and to "The Secretary to the Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs" (Department of internal Security) North Block, New Delhi-110001 in respect of representation to the Central Government and also the detenu has the right to file representation to the detaining authority within 12(twelve) days from the date of detention or till the detention order is approved by the State Government whichever is earlier. 6. After receiving the grounds of detention and also copies of the documents which form the grounds of detention, the detenu filed representation dated 12.9.2011 to the Chief Secretary through the Addl. Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa. Again on 22.9.2011 the detenu filed representation to the Central Government through the Addl. Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa (Aannexure-A/9 to the writ petition). The said representation dated 12.9.2011 had already been considered and disposed of by the Central Government and decision of the Central Govt. had been intimated to the detenu under Wireless Message dated 4.9.2011 that the request of the detenu, i.e. his representation dated 12.9.2011 had not been acceded to by the Central Government. 7. Petitioner's husband/detenu also filed second representation dated 22.9.2011 to the Central Government for revocation of the detention order. It is the case of the detenu that the second representation dated 22.9.2011 had not been considered and disposed of and it is still pending. This plea is specifically taken by the detenu in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner's husband/detenu dated 12.1.2012. Copy of the said reply affidavit had already been furnished to the learned Central Government appearing for the respondent No.3 on the very day i.e. on 12.1.2012. 8. The respondent No.3, Central Government, had filed affidavit in-opposition wherein it is stated clearly that the first representation dated 12.9.2011 from the detenu along with the parawise comments of the detaining authority was received by the Central Government in the concerned desk of the Ministry of Home affairs on 28.9.2011 through the State Government of Manipur vide letter No.17(1)/166/2011-H dated 23.9.2011. The Union Home Secretary, after considering the order of detention and grounds of detention and the representation of the detenu as well as the para-wise comments of the detaining authority, had rejected the representation on 30.9.2011 and the rejection of the first representation had been intimated to the detenu under the wireless message No.II/15023/173/2011-NSA dated 4.10.2011 through the Home Secretary, Govt. of Manipur and copy of the said wireless message for rejecting the first representation dated 12.1.2012 is also annexed to the affidavit in-opposition filed by the respondent No.3 as annexure -C.A.I. On perusal of the said annexure, it is clear that the first representation of the detenu dated 12.9.2011 had already been considered and rejected and had been informed of such rejection to the detenu vide the said wireless message. 9. Regarding the second representation dated 22.9.2011, the Central Government, i.e. respondent No.3, in his affidavit in-opposition vide para 7 of the states that the Govt. of Manipur had forwarded the second representation dated 22.9.2011 received from the detenu vide letter No.17(1)166/2011-H dated 29.9.2011 and para-wise comments received in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 14.10.2011 and the same was examined and submitted to the competent authority on 17.10.2011 for consideration of the detenu's request and the same was not acceded to. In para 7 of the affidavit in-opposition of the respondent No.3 it is not mentioned as to how the decision of the Central Government regarding the second representation had been intimated to the detenu. 10. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner on 12.1.2012, the petitioner had taken clear stand that the second representation has not yet been considered and disposed of and it is still pending. In reply to this clear stand taken by the petitioner in his reply affidavit dated 12.1.2012 that the Central Govt. has neither filed reply affidavit nor produce any document to show that the second representation dated 22.9.2011 had already been considered and rejected. 11. It is now well settled that in case the pleaded facts of the petitioner is not denied or controverted by filing reply or affidavit in-opposition by the opposite party, the facts pleaded by the petitioner shall be deemed to have been admitted by the opposite party. 11. It is now well settled that in case the pleaded facts of the petitioner is not denied or controverted by filing reply or affidavit in-opposition by the opposite party, the facts pleaded by the petitioner shall be deemed to have been admitted by the opposite party. In the present case, as stated above, the pleaded facts of the petitioner that the second representation has not been considered and disposed of and it is still pending has not been denied by the Central Government by filing affidavit or reply affidavit or by producing material document to show that the second representation had been considered and disposed of as done by the Central Government in respect of the first representation dated 12.9.2011. 12. It is the fundamental right of the detenu guaranteed under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India that the detenu should have the right to file representation to the detaining authority as expeditiously as possible and the authority to whom the said representation had been addressed, has to consider and dispose of as expeditiously as possible. In case the second representation dated 22.9.2011 filed by the detenu has not been considered and disposed of, fundamental right of the detenu guaranteed under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution is infringed. 13. For the foregoing facts, we are of the considered view that the right of the detenu guaranteed under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution 7 had been infringed inasmuch as the Central Government in clear infraction of the Article 22(5) of the Constitution had not considered the second representation dated 22.9.2011. 14. In the result, the continued detention of the detenu, namely Salam Nabachandra Singh @ Naba @ Rupa @ Ibomcha @ Dinku @ Kenedy is vitiated and is required to be interfered with. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned detention dated 30.8.2011, the approval order dated 9.9.2011 and the confirmation order are hereby quashed and set aside. The detenu should be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. Writ petition is allowed.