JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ. 1. The petitioner, having been detained under the National Security Act, 1980 by order of the District Magistrate, Imphal West dt. 29.10.2014, has filed this writ application challenging the order of detention in Annexure-A/1 as well as the order of confirmation passed by the State Government in Annexure-A/4 dated 10.12.2014. 2. In the grounds of detention, it is alleged that the petitioner joined a banned organisation namely Peoples' Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak Progressive towards the middle of 2013 and started getting himself involved in several criminal activities under the instructions of his superior in the said organisation. He was arrested on 30.7.2014 at 6.10 PM from Allu Gali, Thangal Bazar in connection with FIR 118(7)14 City P.S. and was remanded to police custody till 6.8.2014. During the said custodial period, he was formally arrested in connection with FIR No. 272(10)13 City P.S. and was again remanded to jail custody in connection with the above case till 11.8.2014. Thereafter he was sent to judicial custody. While in judicial custody, the impugned order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West on the ground that the petitioner should be prevented from commission of prejudicial activities for maintenance of public order u/s 3(2) of NSA, 1980. The said order of detention was approved by the Board and was subsequently confirmed by the State Govt. in Annexure-A/4 and the period of detention was fixed for 12 months. 3. Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the order of detention as well as the order of confirmation passed by the State Govt on two grounds- (i) the petitioner, after being taken to custody in two cases, had not moved any application for bail and therefore in absence of any application for bail, there was no necessity of passing the impugned order of detention and (ii) the State Govt. has no authority to direct for detention of the petitioner for a period of 12 months from the date of detention at one go in contravention of Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the NSA, 1980. 4. has no authority to direct for detention of the petitioner for a period of 12 months from the date of detention at one go in contravention of Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the NSA, 1980. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed not only by the State but also by the Union of India in the writ petition and it is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the State authorities that because of the involvement of the petitioner in several criminal activities as narrated in the grounds of detention, it became necessary to pass the order of detention in order to prevent him from getting involved in further prejudicial activities. 5. Ms. L. Manomala, learned State Counsel and Shri S. Rupachandra, learned ASG appearing for the respondent No. 3 supported the order of detention on the ground that the petitioner should not be set at liberty on technical ground considering the number of cases he is involved while working for the said banned organisation. 6. In the grounds of detention, some instances have been given with regard to involvement of the petitioner in certain criminal activities while working on behalf of the organization. However, there is no dispute that the petitioner was first arrested on 30.7.2014 in connection with FIR No. 118(7)14 City P.S. and while he was on police remand, he was again formally arrested on 6.8.2014 in connection with FIR No. 272(10)13 City P.S. After completion of the period of police remand, he was sent to jail custody and had never moved for bail. There is nothing on record to show that on the date order of detention was passed, i.e. on 29.10.2014, any application on behalf of the petitioner was pending in any court for being released on bail in either of the above two cases. When there was no such application pending for consideration for grant of bail, the order of detention was not required to be passed by the District Magistrate. 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 . This answers the first ground of challenge made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 7. 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 . This answers the first ground of challenge made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 7. So far as the second ground of challenge is concerned, from Annexure-A/4 it is event that the State Govt., while confirming the order of detention, directed that the petitioner shall be detained for a period of 12 months from the date of detention. The said order directing the detention of the petitioner for a period of 12 months at one go is in contravention of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the NSA, 1980. Reference may also be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Cherukuri Mani w/o Narendra Chowdari vs. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & Ors reported in 2014(6) Scale 524 . Relying on the above two decisions the apex Court, this Court in the case of Th. Romen Vs. District Magistrate, Thoubal and 2 Ors vide W.P(Cril) No. 4 of 2015 disposed of on 22.4.2015, allowed the application and held that while passing an order of detention, the detenu can only been directed to be detained for a period of three months at one go which could be extended upto a period of 12 months. Since the order of confirmation in Annexure-A/4 is in contravention of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the NSA, 1980 as well as in contravention of the above judgment of the apex Court, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. For the reasons stated above, we allow the writ petition, quash the order of detention in Annexure-A/1 as well as the order of confirmation in Annexure-A/4 and direct that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required in any other case.