JUDGMENT 1. The order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 dated 8.7.2014 is the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. 2. The petitioner, who is the detenu, was arrested on 24.6.2014 by a team of police commando, Imphal West and one Mobile handset with two Sim Cards were seized from his possession. On the strength of the report of the Officer in-Charge of the City Police Station, F.I.R. case No. 86(6)2014 City P.S. was registered for commission of offence u/s. 364-A/384 IPC and 20/16 UA(P) Act. While in police custody, he was also formally arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 89(6)14 City P.S. While the petitioner was remanded to police custody and was to be produced before the Court on 8.7.2014, the impugned order of detention was passed on the very same day. The subjective satisfaction recorded by the District Magistrate in the impugned order is that the petitioner, who is in police custody, should be prevented from commission of prejudicial activities through an alternative preventive measure. The petitioner, thereafter, made representations to the Central Government and to the State Government and the representations were rejected. 3. In this writ application, only one ground has been raised by Mr. R.K. Umakanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is submitted that after the order of detention was passed on 8.7.2014, the petitioner submitted a representation on 22.7.2014 addressed to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur. The said representation was received on 24.7.2014, but no intimation was given to the petitioner as to whether the said representation was disposed of or not. Only after a long lapse of time, the petitioner was intimated about the rejection of the representation. 4. In para-6 and 7 in the writ petition, it is specifically stated by the petitioner that he had submitted the representation on 22.7.2014 to the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Internal Security and also to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur through the Addl. Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa. Only on 21.8.2014 he was handed over copy of the letter dt. 30.7.2014 that his representation, addressed to the Chief Secretary, had been rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that even though the State Govt. considered the representation of the petitioner dt. of Manipur through the Addl. Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa. Only on 21.8.2014 he was handed over copy of the letter dt. 30.7.2014 that his representation, addressed to the Chief Secretary, had been rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that even though the State Govt. considered the representation of the petitioner dt. 22.7.2014 and rejected the same on 30.7.2014, no intimation was given to the petitioner till 21.8.2014. This submission made in the writ petition is not denied in the counter affidavit filed by the State authorities. On the other hand, the State authorities admit to have received the representation of the petitioner dt. 22.7.2014 on 24.7.2014 and it is also admitted that the said representation was rejected on 30.7.2014. As to why the rejection of the representation was not communicated to the petitioner till 21.8.2014 has not been answered. 5. In this connection, on the above issue, reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Solomon Castro vs. State of Kerala & Ors reported in : (2000) 9 SCC 561 . In the said reported case, the detenu was detained under COFEPOSA Act, 1974. He submitted a representation on 20.3.1999 which was received by the detaining authority on the same day. Thereafter, the detaining authority called for the remarks of the sponsoring authority and the remarks were received on 9.4.1999. The detaining authority, thereafter, prepared a reply rejecting the representation on 23.4.1999, but it was kept in the file and was intimated to the detenu on 28.4.99. Considering such long delay in giving intimation to the detenu with regard to the rejection of his representation, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court as well as the order of detention. Similarly, in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Sukhpal Singh reported in : AIR 1990 SC 231 two months' time was consumed by the State authorities in informing the detenu that his representation had been rejected. The inordinate delay in giving such intimation to the detenu by the State authorities was taken to be a ground for setting aside the order of detention. 6. Admittedly, in the present case the detenu's representation had been rejected on 30.7.2014 but no intimation was given to him regarding such rejection of the representation till 21.8.2014. The inordinate delay in giving such intimation to the detenu by the State authorities was taken to be a ground for setting aside the order of detention. 6. Admittedly, in the present case the detenu's representation had been rejected on 30.7.2014 but no intimation was given to him regarding such rejection of the representation till 21.8.2014. In the counter affidavit filed by the State authorities, no reason has been assigned as to why the order of rejection was not communicated to the petitioner prior to 21.8.2014. Therefore, there was unexplained delay of more than one and half months in communicating the rejection order to the petitioner. Relying on the above two decisions of the apex Court, we find no other option except quashing the impugned order of detention. Accordingly, we allow the writ petition and quash the order of detention dated 8.7.2014 in Annexure-A/3 to the writ petition. We further direct that the petitioner namely Mr. Haominthang Kuki @ Jol be set at liberty unless his detention is required in any other case.