JUDGMENT : The petitioner, having been detained under sub section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 by the order of the District Magistrate, Imphal West dated 7.4.2015, has preferred this writ petition challenging the said order of detention. 2. In the grounds of detention, it is alleged that the petitioner joined a banned organization namely KCP-MC as a Member in the month of Feb/2008. He was arrested by a team of police on 8.4.2008 in connection with FIR case No.38(4)08 Lamphel P.S. and there was recovery of 4 demand letters of the said organization. However, he was released on bail in May, 2008. It is further alleged in the grounds of detention that after being released on bail, the petitioner started living a normal life but again started working for the said organization in 2013. On 31.12.2014 one Kh. Samananda Singh was arrested by police and on his disclosure another person namely, T. Ashok Singh was also arrested. Thereafter, another person namely Kh. Banakanta Singh was arrested and 7 number of Chinese detonators were recovered from him. On the basis of the disclosure made by the said Kh. Banakanta Singh, the petitioner was again arrested and while he was in judicial custody, the impugned order of detention was passed. 3. Shri S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on two grounds. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that relevant documents such as order of release of the co-accused persons on bail and statement of the co-accused which led to the arrest of the petitioner were not supplied to the detaining authority. It was also contended that the representation of the petitioner addressed to the Central Government was dealt with by an officer not authorised to do so. Though these grounds are not taken in the writ petition, at the time of hearing, the above grounds were raised. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mohinuddin vs. District Magistrate, Beed and Ors reported in AIR 1987 SC 1977 . It was decided in the said case by the Apex Court that normally writ petitions are decided on the basis of affidavit and petitioner cannot be permitted to raise any ground not taken in the petition at the time of hearing. It was decided in the said case by the Apex Court that normally writ petitions are decided on the basis of affidavit and petitioner cannot be permitted to raise any ground not taken in the petition at the time of hearing. The same rule cannot be applied to a petition for grant of writ of habeas corpus. It is enough for the detenu to say that he is under wrongful detention and burden lies on the detaining authority to satisfy the Court that the detention is not illegal or wrongful and that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court, even though the above grounds are not taken in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to argue on those ground. 4. From the grounds of detention, it appears that on 31.12.2014 one Kh. Samananda Singh was arrested by police and on his disclosure another person namely T. Ashok Singh was also arrested. Thereafter, the 3rd person namely Kh. Banakanta Singh was arrested and on his disclosure the petitioner was arrested. Therefore, the statement of Kh. Samananda Singh, T. Ashok Singh and Kh. Samananda Singh must have been recorded u/s 161 Cr. PC. From the list of documents supplied to the detaining authority for preparation of grounds of detention, it appears that the statements of these three witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC had not been supplied to the detaining authority. 5. Miss Manomala, learned GA submitted that the documents which are not relevant for the purpose of detention are not required to be supplied to the detaining authority and to substantiate her submission, reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of D. Anuradha vs. Joint Secretary & Anr. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 142 . We are of the view that there is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the said case but it may not have any application to the facts of the present case. 6. Undisputedly, the petitioner was arrested on the basis of a disclosure statement made by a co-accused and therefore the statement of the said co-accused becomes relevant for the purpose of detention. Admittedly, statement of the said co-accused was not given to the detaining authority. 6. Undisputedly, the petitioner was arrested on the basis of a disclosure statement made by a co-accused and therefore the statement of the said co-accused becomes relevant for the purpose of detention. Admittedly, statement of the said co-accused was not given to the detaining authority. Apart from the above, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the co-accused persons had already been released on bail prior to submission of the report before the detaining authority. These facts are also not intimated to the detaining authority as a result of which such facts are not available in the grounds of detention. 7. So far as the second ground is concerned, we find that the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India has filed an affidavit stating therein that the report from the State Government with regard to the detention of the petitioner was received by the Central Govt. in the concerned Section on 5.5.2015. In absence of DS/Director, the same was put for consideration before the Joint Secretary (Security), an officer senior in rank to DS/Director who has been delegated power by the Home Minister to take note of the report under sub section (5) of Section 3 of the Act. Though such a statement has been made in the affidavit, in Annexure-C/1 which is a notification in pursuance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Govt. of India (Transaction of Business) Rules 1961 it is stated that power under sub section (5) of Section 3 in respect of consideration of report received from the State Government regarding detention of a person under the Act has to be dealt with by the Home Secretary. If the Home Secretary is away on tour or is on leave, the same can be dealt with by the Secretary/Special Secretary (Internal Security) MHA. 8. In the present case, the representation of the petitioner has been dealt with by the Joint Secretary (Security) who may be an officer higher than the Dy. Secretary/Director in the Internal Security Division, but as per the said notification the report is to be considered either by the Home Secretary or in his absence by the Secretary/Special Secretary (Internal Security) MHA. Therefore, non consideration of the representation of the petitioner by the authorised officer of the Central Government is also a factor which cannot be overlooked. Secretary/Director in the Internal Security Division, but as per the said notification the report is to be considered either by the Home Secretary or in his absence by the Secretary/Special Secretary (Internal Security) MHA. Therefore, non consideration of the representation of the petitioner by the authorised officer of the Central Government is also a factor which cannot be overlooked. On consideration of the above two grounds, we are of the view that the order of detention cannot be sustained. 9. We, accordingly, allow the writ petition, set aside the impugned order of detention and direct that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required in any other case.