JUDGMENT L.K. Mohapatra, C.J. The petitioner in this writ application questions the legality of the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West on 6.11.2013 in Annexure -C/4, in exercise of his powers conferred under Section 3 Sub-Section (3) of the National Security Act, 1980. 2. From the grounds of detention, it appears that the petitioner is a member of United Liberation Front (for short 'UNLF') and works in different capacities for the said Organisation. On 24.10.2013 at about 6.30 AM, he was arrested by a team of CDO/IW and certain materials were seized from him. He was, thereafter, handed over to the Officer-in-Charge, Imphal Police Station and a case was registered for commission of offence under section 121/121-A IPC & 16/20 UA(P)A Act. He was remanded to police custody till 6.11.2013 and thereafter remained in jail custody. While continuing in police custody, on 6.11.2013, the impugned order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West on the ground that the petitioner, who is in police custody is likely to be released on bail in the near future by normal criminal court as bail is granted in similar cases by the criminal courts. 2.1. After the order of detention was passed on 6.11.2013, the grounds of detention were served on him on 7.11.2013. The order of detention was approved by the Board and was also subsequently confirmed by the State Government. The representation of the petitioner was also rejected both by the State Government as well as the Union of India. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Mr. Kh. Binoykumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the order of detention basically on three grounds. The first ground of challenge is that the order of detention was passed on 6.11.2013 and the grounds of detention was served on the petitioner on the very next day. It obviously means that the grounds of detention had not been prepared prior to the order of detention. The second ground of challenge is that the date on which the order of detention was passed, no application for bail on behalf of the petitioner was pending consideration by the Court and as a matter of fact the prayer for bail had been rejected by the Court a day prior to the order of detention. The second ground of challenge is that the date on which the order of detention was passed, no application for bail on behalf of the petitioner was pending consideration by the Court and as a matter of fact the prayer for bail had been rejected by the Court a day prior to the order of detention. The third ground of challenge is with regard to unexplained delay in forwarding the representation of the petitioner by the State Govt. to the Union of India, which has made the order of detention invalid. 2.1. Learned State counsel, Ms. L. Monomala Devi, appearing on behalf of the State respondents submitted that there is no illegality in serving the grounds of detention a day after the order of detention was passed. It was, further, submitted that even though no bail application was pending on the day the order of detention was passed, since in similar case bail is granted by the criminal courts, there was every justification in apprehension of the District Magistrate that the petitioner would also be released on bail. So far as the delay in forwarding the representation is concerned, the learned State counsel admitted that there is some delay but it happened because of the official process. 2.2. Mr. Amarjit N, learned CGSC appearing for the Union of India referred to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India and submitted that the representation of the petitioner forwarded by the State Government was received in the concerned section of the Ministry of Home Affairs on 23.12.2013 and the same was rejected on 24.12.2013. Therefore, there was no delay on the part of the Union of India in consideration of the representation of the petitioner. 4. Undisputedly, in Annexure-C/4, the District Magistrate, Imphal West passed the order of detention on 6.11.2013 and on the very next day, the grounds of detention under section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 was served on the detenu. It was contended by the learned counsel of the petitioner/detenu that the grounds of detention have to be prepared first and signed by the authority concerned as the order of detention is based on the grounds of detention. If the grounds of detention are not in existence prior to the order of detention, such order of detention becomes invalid. It was contended by the learned counsel of the petitioner/detenu that the grounds of detention have to be prepared first and signed by the authority concerned as the order of detention is based on the grounds of detention. If the grounds of detention are not in existence prior to the order of detention, such order of detention becomes invalid. Reliance was placed in this connection on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Krishna Murari Aggarwala -Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1975 SC 1877 . In paragraph-7 of the judgment, the Supreme Court made the following observations: 7. Section 3(1) of the Act runs thus: 3. (1) The Central Government or the State Government may- (a) if satisfied with respect to any person (including a foreigner) that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to- (i) the defence of India, the relations of India with foreign powers, or the security of India, or (ii) the security of the State of the maintenance of public order, or (iii) maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, 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 arrangement for his expulsion from India; It is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. This power can also be exercised by the officers mentioned in sub-section (2), and in the instant case, we are concerned with the District Magistrate. The words "make an order directing that such person be detained" clearly postulate three conditions - (i) that the order must be made by the authority mentioned in section 3: (ii) the order must be duly signed by the said authority: and (iii) that only one authority and one authority alone can pass such order of detention. The statute does not contemplate a sort of composite or a joint order passed by several authorities. In the instant case, the original order of detention passed by Mr. S.K.D. Mathur bears his signature and even the grounds mentioned bears his signature. In this circumstances, we are unable to accept the affidavit of Mr. S.K.D. Mathur that the grounds framed by him were merely draft grounds prepared by him which were signed by the permanent District Magistrate later. S.K.D. Mathur bears his signature and even the grounds mentioned bears his signature. In this circumstances, we are unable to accept the affidavit of Mr. S.K.D. Mathur that the grounds framed by him were merely draft grounds prepared by him which were signed by the permanent District Magistrate later. It is obvious that unless the order made and the grounds prepared are signed by the authority concerned, the order is not made as contemplated by section 3 of the Act. Furthermore, since the order is based on grounds to be served on the detenu, the order of detention could be passed only if the grounds are in existence and are prepared contemporaneously, otherwise, the order of detention becomes purely illusory. In view, however, of the contradictory affidavits given by Mr. S.K.D. Mathur, it is difficult to determine whether Mr. S.K.D. Mathur or Mr. R.C. Arora passed the order of detention as to who amount them was satisfied regarding the grounds of detention. This is also a very serious infirmity from which the order of detention suffers and as a result of which the order has to be set aside. There appears to us to be a clear violation of the provisions of section 3 of the Act in this case. Referring to the said paragraph, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the grounds of detention having been prepared on 7.11.2013 that could not form the basis of the order of detention and therefore, the order of detention is illegal. On a comparison of the order of detention and the grounds of detention, we find that though the grounds of detention bears the date 7.11.2013, the content of the grounds of detention as well as the order of detention are more or less the same. Therefore, it appears that the grounds of detention earlier prepared were made available to the District Magistrate to pass the order of detention. Merely putting two different dates, one in the order of detention and another in the grounds of detention, will not make the order of detention invalid when contents of both are found to be similar. We, therefore, find no substance in the first ground of challenge to the order of detention. 4.1. Merely putting two different dates, one in the order of detention and another in the grounds of detention, will not make the order of detention invalid when contents of both are found to be similar. We, therefore, find no substance in the first ground of challenge to the order of detention. 4.1. So far as the second ground of challenge is concerned, the relevant part of the order of detention is quoted below: And whereas, I am satisfied from the police report that Shri Achom Anil @Ibomcha@Sanajaoba@Muttu@Dharambir (38 yrs), S/o A. Manglem of Nongchup Kameng Mamang Leikai, P.S.-Lamsang, A/P Kwakeithel Thouda Bhabok Takhel Leikai, P.S. - Imphal, District - Imphal West, Manipur who is now in Police custody, is likely to be released on bail in the near future by the normal criminal court as bails are granted in similar cases by the criminal courts. 5. From the above, it appears that the District Magistrate, Imphal West was satisfied that the petitioner, who was in police custody on the date the order of detention is passed, is likely to be released on bail since bail is granted in similar case. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether in absence of bail application the detenu could be released on bail. Undisputedly, in the absence of bail application, the detenu could not be released on bail. Therefore, the apprehension of the District Magistrate reflected as his subjective satisfaction in the order of detention is without any basis. Moreover, if the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prayer for bail had been rejected by the criminal court a day prior to the order of detention is passed is correct, the subjective satisfaction recorded by the District Magistrate in the order of detention as quoted above becomes factually wrong. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rekha Vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244 . The relevant paragraphs of the above judgment are quoted below: 26. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rekha Vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244 . The relevant paragraphs of the above judgment are quoted below: 26. It was held in Union of India V. Paul Manickam that if the detaining authority is aware of the fact that the detenu is in custody and the detaining authority is reasonably satisfied with cogent material that there is likelihood of his release and in view of his antecedent activities he must be detained to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities, the detention order can validly be made. 27. In our opinion, there is a real possibility of release of a person on bail who is already in custody provided he has moved a bail application which is pending. It follows logically that if no bail application is pending, then there is no likelihood of the person in custody being released on bail, and hence the detention order will be illegal. However, there can be an exception to this rule, that is, where a co-accused whose case stands on the same footing had been granted bail. In such cases, the detaining authority can reasonably conclude that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail even though no bail application of his is pending, since most courts normally grant bail on this ground. However, details of such alleged similar cases must be given, otherwise the bald statement of the authority cannot be believed. Therefore, on this ground, the order of detention becomes invalid. 6. So far as the third ground of challenge is concerned, the same relates to delay in forwarding the representation of the petitioner by the State Government to the Union of India for consideration. From the writ application as well as from the counter affidavit filed by the Union of India, we find that the petitioner submitted the representation on 14.11.2013. The State Government sent the said representation to the Union of India on 3.12.2013. The concerned section of the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Union of India received the representation of the petitioner on 23.12.2013 and the same was rejected on 24.12.2013. The State Government sent the said representation to the Union of India on 3.12.2013. The concerned section of the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Union of India received the representation of the petitioner on 23.12.2013 and the same was rejected on 24.12.2013. Therefore, there was no delay on the part of the Union of India in consideration of the representation of the petitioner but there was delay on the part of the State in forwarding the representation of the petitioner to the Union of India for consideration. The representation was filed on 14.11.2013 whereas the State sent the said representation to the Union of India for consideration on 3.12.2013. There was delay of almost 19 days in forwarding the representation to the Union of India. No explanation has been offered by the State Government explaining such delay in forwarding the representation of the petitioner. Reference be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kamala Kanhaiyalal Khushalani -vs. - State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in AIR 1981 SC 814 . In the said reported case, there was unexplained delay of 25 days in disposing the representation of the detenu. The Supreme Court held the order of detention to be void. A similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka -vs. - Marigowda, reported in AIR 1982 SC 1171 , where there was a delay of 29 days. Recently, in the case of Rashid Kapadia--Vs--Medha Gadgil & Ors., reported in (2012) 11 SCC 745 , one month's delay in consideration of the representation of the detenu was taken serious note of by the Supreme Court. Coming to a finding that there was no explanation for 15 days' delay on the part of the authority concerned, the court further held that the right of a person, who is preventively detained, to make a representation and have it considered by the authority concerned as expeditiously as possible is a constitutional right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Any unreasonable and unexplainable delay in considering the representation is fatal to continued detention. A Similar view was also expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi -Vs - State of Manipur & Ors., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 618 . Any unreasonable and unexplainable delay in considering the representation is fatal to continued detention. A Similar view was also expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi -Vs - State of Manipur & Ors., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 618 . As observed earlier, the delay of 19 days on the part of the State Government in forwarding the representation to the Union of India having not been explained at all, the order of detention becomes illegal. 7. In view of our findings in relation to the ground nos. 2 & 3, we have no other option except setting aside the order of detention. We accordingly allow the writ application, set aside the order of detention dated 6.11.2013 in Annexure-C/4 and the subsequent order of confirmation dated 30.12.2013 in Annexure-C/9 passed by the State Government and direct the petitioner, namely Shri Achom Anil @Ibomcha @Sanajaoba @Muttu @Dharambir (38 yrs), S/o A. Manglem of Nongchup Kameng Mamang Leikai, P.S.-Lamsang, A/P Kwakeithel Thouda Bhabok Takhel Leikai, P.S. - Imphal, District - Imphal West, Manipur, be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required in any other case(s).