JUDGMENT Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri Ch. Ngongo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Y. Ashang, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents as well as Shri S. Rupachandra, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Union of India. 2. The validity and the correctness of the impugned detention order dated 18-11-2014 and the approval order dated 29-11-2014 are being challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 3. It is alleged in the grounds of detention that the petitioner was born and brought up at Awang Jiri under the jurisdiction of Nambol P.S., Imphal West District. While the petitioner was in the school and before the completion of the academic session of Class - X, he gave up his further studies due to poverty. The petitioner joined the banned organisation namely, United National Liberation Front (UNLF, in short) as a member in the month of February, 2009 through Shri Longjam Sanajaoba Meitei @ Boy @ Sana @ Batri @ Romi @ Sanahal of Pukhao Leitanpokpi. After joining the said banned organisation, the petitioner started working for UNLF organisation under the said Shri L. Sanajaoba who utilized the petitioner's service as a courier amongst the UNLF members in the valley districts of Manipur. As per the direction of Shri L. Sanajaoba, he along with other members of the UNLF carried out mobilisation works in Imphal West and Bishnupur Districts. The petitioner contacted Secretaries of different Clubs, Organisations, Meira Paibis and convinced the general public particularly, youngsters to wage war against the Government of India. On 21-10-2014 Shri L. Sanajaoba handed over one 7.65 mm pistol with three live rounds to him for carrying out the said mobilisation works. On 05-11-2014 at 11:00 a.m. the petitioner was arrested by the police team of CDO, Bishnupur led by Hav. Md. Islamuddin from Oinam Bazar with the recovery of 7.65 mm pistol made in U.S. and three live rounds and ammunitions from his possession and seized the same by observing formalities. The petitioner was handed over to O.C., Nambol P.S. with a written report and seized articles, on the strength of which the O.C., Nambol P.S. registered a regular case under F.I.R No. 137(11)2014 Nambol-PS u/s 20 UA(P) Act & 25(1-C)A. Act and the petitioner was remanded to police custody till 18-11-2014. The petitioner was handed over to O.C., Nambol P.S. with a written report and seized articles, on the strength of which the O.C., Nambol P.S. registered a regular case under F.I.R No. 137(11)2014 Nambol-PS u/s 20 UA(P) Act & 25(1-C)A. Act and the petitioner was remanded to police custody till 18-11-2014. While the petitioner was in police custody, the respondent No. 1 issued the detention order dated 18-11-2014 under section 3(2) of the National Security Act which was approved by the State Government on 29-11-2014. 4. The said Detention order dated 18-11-2014 and the approval order dated 29-11-2014 have been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition on various grounds. The writ petition was contested by the respondent No. 1 by filing an affidavit in opposition wherein it is stated that the detention order dated 18-11-2014 was approved by the State Government after considering the grounds of detention and other relevant documents furnished by the District Magistrate. It is further stated that the representation dated 04-12-2014 of the petitioner was forwarded both to the Central Government and the Chairman, Advisory Board on 09-12-2014. The Central Government has filed an affidavit explaining as to how the said representation dated 04-12-2014 was considered and rejected and the decision conveyed to the petitioner. 5. During the course of hearing, the counsel appearing for the petitioner has given emphasis only on one ground and has vehemently submitted that the State Government has failed to consider the representation dated 04-12-2014 of the petitioner independently before placing it before the Advisory Board and that this act of the State Government amounted to violation of the constitutional right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 6. Before considering the rival contentions of the parties, we may refer to some of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on identical facts. In the case of Smt. Gracy Vs. State of Kerala & anr., reported in (1991) 2 SCC 1 wherein the question was: whether there has been any infraction of the guarantee under Article 22(5) of the Constitution as a result of Central Government's omission to consider the detenu's representation independent of its consideration by the Advisory Board? In the case of Smt. Gracy Vs. State of Kerala & anr., reported in (1991) 2 SCC 1 wherein the question was: whether there has been any infraction of the guarantee under Article 22(5) of the Constitution as a result of Central Government's omission to consider the detenu's representation independent of its consideration by the Advisory Board? The Central Government's stand was that the detenu's representation being addressed to the Advisory Board to which it was submitted during the pendency of the reference before the Advisory Board, there was no obligation on the Central Government also to consider the same independently since the representation was not addressed to the Central Government. Referring to its earlier decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "6. It is thus clear that the obligation of the Government to consider the representation is different and in addition to the obligation of the Board to consider it at the time of hearing the reference before giving its opinion to the government. Consideration of the representation by the government has to be uninfluenced by the view of the Advisory Board. In short, the detenu's right to have the representation considered by the government under Article 22(5) is independent of the consideration of the detenu's case and his representation by the Advisory Board. This position in law is also not disputed before us." "The contents of Article 22(5) as well as the nature of duty imposed thereby on the detaining authority support the view that so long as there is a representation made by the detenu against the order of detention, the aforesaid dual obligation under Article 22(5) arises irrespective of the fact whether the representation is addressed to the detaining authority or to the Advisory Board or to both. The mode of address is only a matter of form which cannot whittle down the requirement of the constitutional mandate in Article 22(5) enacted as one of the safeguards provided to the detenu in case of preventive detention" (para 9). In the case of Moosa Husein Sanghar Vs Sate of Gujarat & ors., reported in (1993) 1 SCC 51 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "6. It must, therefore, be held that merely because the representation was addressed to the Advisory Board and not to the State Government did not absolve the State Government from the constitutional obligation flowing from Article 22(5) to consider the said representation." 7. It must, therefore, be held that merely because the representation was addressed to the Advisory Board and not to the State Government did not absolve the State Government from the constitutional obligation flowing from Article 22(5) to consider the said representation." 7. The right to make a representation against the order of detention is the most cherished and valuable right conferred upon a detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and also equally important is the right to have his representation considered by the appropriate Government. In the present case, the detention order was issued by the District Magistrate on 18-11-2014 and after having received the grounds of detention, the petitioner submitted his representation dated 04-12-2014 which was forwarded by the State Government both to the Chairman, Advisory Board and the Central Government on 09-12-2014. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondents, it has not been disputed that the State Government did not at any time consider independently the detenu's representation addressed to the Advisory Board. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner stands substantiated by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above. The counsel appearing for the State respondents fairly admitted that the State Government had not considered the representation independently at all and we are of the view that failure or omission on the part of the State Government to consider the representation independently had rendered the detention order invalid. Therefore, this court has no option but to quash and set aside both the detention order and the approval order on this technical ground only. 8. Considering the manner in which the petitioner's case has been dealt with particularly in regard to the non-consideration of his representation independently by the State Government, this court is of the further view that it must express its dissatisfaction and anguish in respect thereof. The callous attitude being shown to by the officers of the State Government towards neglecting the mandatory requirements is highly uncalled for and unfortunate. It is right time for the State Government to direct its concerned officers to be wary and mindful while dealing with the personal liberty of a citizen. 9. The callous attitude being shown to by the officers of the State Government towards neglecting the mandatory requirements is highly uncalled for and unfortunate. It is right time for the State Government to direct its concerned officers to be wary and mindful while dealing with the personal liberty of a citizen. 9. In view of the above observations, we allow the writ petition and consequently quash both the detention order dated 18-11-2014 and approval order dated 29-11-2014 and direct that the petitioner namely Sanjenbam Ramanada Singh @ Rama be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. A copy of this judgment and order shall be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur with a direction to hold an enquiry and fix responsibility upon its officer so that such negligence is not repeated in future.