ORDER : This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India assails the order of the State Government contained in Annexure P/1 dated 5.9. 2014 passed u/S. 3 (2) r/w Sec. 12 (1) of The National Security Act, 1980 (' Act of 1980' for brevity) where the petitioner has been subjected to preventive detention for a peirod of 12 months, i.e. till 15th July, 2015. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the impugned order of preventive detention is bad in the eyes of law as much as the same having been passed in absence of any cogent material that the petitioner has acted prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is further submitted that the order passed by the State Government is bereft of jurisdiction in as much as the State having no power to confirm the order of preventive detention passed by the District Magistrate, for a period exceeding three months at one point of time as is provided in proviso to Sec. 3 (3) of the Act of 1980. 4. The factual matrix involved in the case is that on 13.4.2014 vide Annexure P/2 District Magistrate, Bhind passed an order of preventive detention u/S. 3 (2) & (3). This order of the District Magistrate was confirmed by Annexure P-1 dated 5.9.2014 by the State Government for period of 12 months, i.e. till 15th of July, 2015. 5. Testing the legality and validity of the impugned order of preventive detention passed by the District Magistrate and the State on the anvil of the provisions of National Security Act, it is evident that the power of confirmation is vested with the State under sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 3. The said power can be exercised for a period of only three months at one point of time. This can be extended, again for further three months and so on and so forth but not beyond a maximum period of 12 months. 6. For convenience and ready reference, the entire Sec. 3 of NSA, 1980 is reproduced hereinbelow:- 3. The said power can be exercised for a period of only three months at one point of time. This can be extended, again for further three months and so on and so forth but not beyond a maximum period of 12 months. 6. For convenience and ready reference, the entire Sec. 3 of NSA, 1980 is reproduced hereinbelow:- 3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons.- (1) The Central Government or the State Government may, (a) if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India, the relations of India with foreign powers, or the security of India, or (b) if satisfied with respect to any foreigner that with a view to regulating his continued presence in India or with a view to making arrangements for his expulsion from India, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. (2) The Central Government or the State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and servies essential to the community it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. Explanation.- For the purpose of this subsection, ' acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community' does not include ' acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community' as defined in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (7 of 1980), and accordingly, no order of detention shall be made under this Act on any ground on which an order of detention may be made under that Act. (3) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may, by order in writing, direct, that during such period as may be specified in the order, such District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (2), exercise the powers conferred by the said sub-section: Provided that the period specified in an order made by the State Government under this sub-section shall not, in the first instance, exceed three months, but the State Government may, if satisfied as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend such order to extend such period from time to time by a period not exceeding three months at any one time. 7. On perusal of the above, especially the emphasized portion, it is evident that the State Government has no power to confirm an order of preventive detention passed by the District Magistrate, for a period exceeding three months at one point of time. 8. In the instant case, a bare perusal of Annexure P-1 an order passed by the State Government confirming the order of preventive detention passed by the District Magistrate, it is crystal clear that the confirmation is granted for a period of 12 months at one point of time, which is impermissible in law. 9. The impugned order Annexure P-1 is passed in blatant violation of the mandatory provision to Proviso to Sec. 3 (3) of the National Security Act, 1980. 10. Once the impugned order of confirmation passed by the State Government contained in Annexure P-1 falls, the basic order of preventive detention passed by the District Magistrate also paves the way of extinction. 11. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed with the following directions: 1. The impugned order of confirmation passed by the State dated 5.9.2014 contained in Annexure P-1 and also order of preventive detention passed by the District Magistrate contained in Annexure P-2 dated 13.4. 2014 are quashed. 2. However, the competent authority shall be free to invoke the provisions of National Security Act, 1980 if the occasion justifies and the law permits in the changed circumstances. 3. 2014 are quashed. 2. However, the competent authority shall be free to invoke the provisions of National Security Act, 1980 if the occasion justifies and the law permits in the changed circumstances. 3. In view of the State Government having passed the order of preventive detention in blatant disregard of the mandatory provisions of the Act, thereby violating the fundamental right of liberty, it would be appropriate to impose cost. 4. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to the cost of this petition which is quantified at Rs. 5,000/- to be borne by the State. The said cost shall be paid to the petitioner and compliance report be submitted in the Registry of this court within sixty days from today. Petition allowed.