ORDER T. NK. Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ph. Sanajaoba, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Y. Ashang, learned G.A. appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. Amarjit Naorem, learned CGSC appearing for the respondent No. 3. The only concise fact sufficient for deciding the matter in issue in the present writ petition is noted. At the very outset, it may be worth to mention that the present detention order is the second detention order and the first detention order was set aside by this Court vide judgment and order dated 12.5.2011 passed in W.P. (Cri) No. 132/2010 (Annexure-N/1 colly to the present petition). 2. On 5.11.2011 at about 10.00 a.m. the detenu, i.e. husband of the petitioner, Shri Khwairakpam Dharmendra Singh, was again arrested from his house by some police personnel. Again he was implicated in a criminal case, i.e. FIR No. 114(11) 2011 BPR P.S. u/S. 17 and 20, UA(P) Act on the allegation that the detenu still has nexus with the so-called organization (proscribed organization), i.e. Kangleipak Communist Party (KYKL for short) and works under one Taibangnganba of KCP (MC) as District Finance Secretary and on the next day the detenu was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bishnupur who remanded the detenu to the police custody till 15.11.2011. On 15.11.2011 when the detenu was produced before the Court, he was served with the impugned detention order dated 15.11.2011 issued by the District Magistrate, Bishnupur. For receiving the impugned detention order dated 15.11.2011 the detenu put his signature mentioning the date for acknowledging the impugned detention order dated 15.11.2011 on the official copy of the impugned detention order dated 15.11.2011 maintained by the detaining authority, i.e. District Magistrate, Bishnupur. 3. In pursuance of the Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 the detaining authority, i.e. District Magistrate, Bishnupur under his letter dated 19.11.2011 furnished not only the grounds of detention but also the copies of the documents which form the basis of the grounds of detention only on 21.11.2011 to the detenu. Again the detenu for acknowledging the letter of the detaining authority dated 19.11.2011 only on 21-11-2011, put his signature mentioning the date, i.e. 21-11-2011 on the copy of the grounds of detention and also on the official copy of the grounds of detention maintained by the detaining authority, i.e. District Magistrate, Bishnupur. Again the detenu for acknowledging the letter of the detaining authority dated 19.11.2011 only on 21-11-2011, put his signature mentioning the date, i.e. 21-11-2011 on the copy of the grounds of detention and also on the official copy of the grounds of detention maintained by the detaining authority, i.e. District Magistrate, Bishnupur. Photocopies of the impugned detention order dated 15.11.2011 which bears the signature of the detenu having the date, i.e. 15.11.2011, i.e. the date of receiving the detention order and the grounds of detention dated 19.11.2011 having the signature of the detenu along with the date, i.e. 21.11.2011 (i.e. the date of receiving the grounds of detention) are also annexed in the present writ petition as Annexures-N/2 and N/3 respectively. 4. It is fairly well settled that the procedural safeguards provided in detention matters should be scrupulously followed by the detaining authority and the authority concerned; any violation of the procedural safeguards will vitiate the detention order. 5. Mr. Sanajaoba, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by referring to Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980, strenuously contends that the procedural safeguards provided therein, i.e. the mandatory duty of the detaining authority to furnish grounds of detention as soon as may be, but not later than 5 days and in exceptional circumstances and for the reasons to be recorded in writing not later than 10 days from the date of the detention, have not been strictly followed by the detaining authority inasmuch as the grounds of detention in the given case have not been furnished within 5 days. He also further contends that there are absolutely no exceptional circumstances and reasons recorded in writing for not furnishing the grounds of detention within 5 days to the detenu by the detaining authority. 6. As stated above, the impugned detention order, i.e. 15.11.2011, was furnished to the detenu on the very day of passing the impugned detention order, i.e. on 15.11.2011. The detenu also acknowledged it by putting his signature on the copy of the impugned detention order with date, i.e. on 15.11.2011. The grounds of detention under the letter of the District Magistrate dated 19.11.2011 were furnished or/communicated to the detenu after expiry of 5 days, i.e. on the 7th day from the date of detention, i.e. 15.11.2011. For easy reference, Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 is quoted below: 8. The grounds of detention under the letter of the District Magistrate dated 19.11.2011 were furnished or/communicated to the detenu after expiry of 5 days, i.e. on the 7th day from the date of detention, i.e. 15.11.2011. For easy reference, Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 is quoted below: 8. Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to persons affected by the order.--(1) When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the' order shall, as soon as may be, but ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than ten days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the appropriate Government. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall require the authority to disclose facts which it considers to be against the public interest to disclose. 7. The petitioner has taken specific plea in para 7 of the writ petition that the grounds of detention was served to the detenu only on 21.11.2011, i.e. on the 7th day from the date of the impugned order of detention; as a result the impugned detention order dated 15.11.2011 is vitiated for violation of the Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 8 of the NSA, 1980. Para 7 of the writ petition read as follows: 7. It is stated that the letter (Annexure-N/ 3) said to be the grounds of detention (Annexure-N/3), was served to the detenu only on 21.11.2011, i.e. on the 7th day after serving the impugned order of detention (Annexure-N/2) to the detenu on 15.11.2011, i.e. the grounds of detention was served to the detenu after 6 (six) days. 8. The respondent No. 2, detaining authority, i.e. District Magistrate, Bishnupur also filed affidavit in-opposition on 10.4.2012. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the detaining authority, there is no categorical denial of the contents of the para 7 of the writ petition which has been quoted above. 8. The respondent No. 2, detaining authority, i.e. District Magistrate, Bishnupur also filed affidavit in-opposition on 10.4.2012. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the detaining authority, there is no categorical denial of the contents of the para 7 of the writ petition which has been quoted above. The only reply of the respondent No. 2, detaining authority, in the affidavit-in-opposition is that the detention order has been passed basing on the cogent materials available on the record and the National Security Act, 1980 does not lay down any parameter for arriving at the subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority and the matter is left to the subjective satisfaction of the authority or the Magistrate. It is also stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the impugned detention order was executed on 21.11.2011. It is not clear from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2 in the given case as to what is meant by execution of the detention order, i.e. 15.11.2011 inasmuch as the detenu is already in custody at the time of passing the impugned detention order dated 15.11.2011. 9. As stated above, it is the categorical pleading of the petitioner in the writ petition that the impugned detention order, i.e. dated 15.11.2011, was furnished to the detenu on the day of passing the impugned detention order, i.e. dated 15.11.2011 and the grounds of detention under the letter of the learned District Magistrate, Bishnupur (detaining authority) dated 19.11.2011 was served or/ communicated to the detenu on 21.11.2011. In order to ascertain this fact as to when the impugned detention order dated 15.11.2011 and the grounds of detention order had been furnished or/communicated to the detenu, Mr. In order to ascertain this fact as to when the impugned detention order dated 15.11.2011 and the grounds of detention order had been furnished or/communicated to the detenu, Mr. Ashang, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents-1 and 2, is directed to produce the relevant file, i.e. the file of the detaining authority and the learned G.A. readily placed the file before this Court and on careful perusal of it, it is crystal clear that the impugned detention order, i.e. 15.11.2011, was furnished to the detenu on 15.11.2011, for acknowledging it the detenu put his signature on the margin of the impugned detention order, i.e. 15.11.2011 by mentioning the date for receiving it, i.e. on 15.11.2011 and also the impugned grounds of detention, i.e. 19.11.2011 was communicated to the detenu only on 21.11.2011 and for acknowledging it the detenu also signed his signature on the margin of the grounds of detention mentioning the date i.e. on 21.11.2011. 10. From the above factual backdrop, it is crystal clear that the grounds of detention was furnished or/communicated by the detaining authority to the detenu after expiry of the five days mentioned in Section 8 of the NSA, 1980 which has been quoted above and also there is no material or reason for not furnishing the grounds of detention within five days from the date of the detention order. 11. Mr. Sanajaoba, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in order to substantiate the grounds for assailing the impugned detention order which has been discussed above, relied heavily on the decision of the Apex Court in Hem Lall Bhandari v. State of Sikkim & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 762 . In Hem Lal Bhandari's case (supra) the Apex Court held that in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the grounds of detention should be communicated to the detenu within five days from the date of detention; in case of violation of this mandatory requirement, the impugned detention order is vitiated. Paras 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the AIR read as follows: 10. A bare reading of the Section shows that it is obligatory on the detaining officer to communicate to the detenu, the grounds on which the order of detention has been made, promptly. This has to be done as soon as possible and ordinarily not later than 5 days, The detaining authority is permitted to exceed this limitation of 5 days in exceptional circumstances. This has to be done as soon as possible and ordinarily not later than 5 days, The detaining authority is permitted to exceed this limitation of 5 days in exceptional circumstances. The grounds of detention, under exceptional circumstances, can be communicated to the detenu within a period not later than 10 days from the date of detention but when the detaining authority takes time longer than 5 days he was to record reasons why the grounds of detention could not be communicated within 5 days. It is clear in this case that the grounds of detention were communicated to the petitioner long after 10 days. There is no record evidencing any reason for this long delay. 11. We have therefore to examine the reasons why the grounds of detention were given only on 14-10-1986. It is stated in the Counter Affidavit sworn to by the Home Secretary that the grounds of detention were handed over to Shri K.P. Subba for service on the petitioner on 3-10-1986. This K.P. Subba has not chosen to file an affidavit in this case to inform this Court as to what really happened with the grounds of detention given to him for service on the petitioner. It is stated in the Counter Affidavit that Shri Subba learnt from the petitioner's Advocate, Mrs. Swamy, that the petitioner had left for Bombay. The Counter Affidavit continues to say that on 4-10-1986, the 'police officers' could not contact the petitioner in his home address. It is not evident from this statement as to which officer tried to contact the petitioner in his home address on-4-10-1986. It is further stated that he waited on 5-10-1986 also but he did not find the petitioner at his house address or in the Court. The Counter Affidavit is not sufficiently communicative as to who this police officer was. The Counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon us the fact that this statement cannot be true be-cause-5-10-1986 happens to be a Sunday and that no police officer would try to contact an Advocate in Court on Sunday. This police officer is said to have returned to New Delhi on 6-10-1986. The Counter Affidavit is eloquently silent about what happened after 6-10-1986. This police officer is said to have returned to New Delhi on 6-10-1986. The Counter Affidavit is eloquently silent about what happened after 6-10-1986. The Counter Affidavit thereafter discloses the fact that Shri K.P. Subba, the police officer, waited till 6th October, 1986 in Bombay and returned to Gangtok since he was not able to contact the petitioner. The complaint of the officer is that the petitioner made it impossible for him to serve the grounds of detention. Every attempt on the part of the officer to serve the petitioner with grounds of detention were rendered futile by taking advantage of the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court. It is further stated in the Counter Affidavit that the grounds of detention could not be served since the petitioner was released on bail and was not under detention from 2nd October, 1986 onwards. 12. We have considered the averments in the Counter Affidavit carefully. We have no hesitation to hold that there has been a flagrant violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 8 in this case. It is not permissible, in matters relating to the personal liberty and freedom of a citizen, to take either a liberal or a generous view of the lapses on the part of the officers. In matters where the liberty of the citizens is involved, it is necessary for the officers to act with utmost expedition and in strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of law. Expeditious action is insisted upon as a safeguard against the manipulation. 13. In this case there is no acceptable or satisfactory explanation as to what the officer or the officers did after 6-10-1986. This inaction after 6-10-1986 till 14-10-1986, by itself is sufficient for us to hold that Section 8(1) has been violated by the officer concerned and on that ground alone the order of detention has to be quashed. 12. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned detention order is vitiated because of the failure on the part of the detaining authority to scrupulously follow the mandatory safeguards provided in Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980. In the result, the impugned detention order dated 15.11.2011, the approval order dated 22.11.2011 and the confirmation order dated 02.01.2012 are set aside and quashed. In the result, the impugned detention order dated 15.11.2011, the approval order dated 22.11.2011 and the confirmation order dated 02.01.2012 are set aside and quashed. The detenu namely, Khwairakpam Dharmendra Singh alias Twenty four (38 yrs), be released forthwith, if he is not required in connection with any other case. This writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed