JUDGMENT AND ORDER : R.R. Prasad, J Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the Union of India. 2. This application has been filed by the petitioner being wife of the detenu namely, Shri Ningthoujam Binoy Singh for quashing of the detention order dated 07.09.2015 whereby and whereunder the District Magistrate Bishnupur, Manipur (respondent No.2) in exercise of the power under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 passed an order of the detention of the detenu. 3. The facts leading to this case are that on 16.04.2015 at 6:30 p.m. the detenu was arrested by a column of 6th Assam Rifles led by Nb/Sub. Kripal Singh from Kumbi Bazar and from possession of the detenu one mobile phone as well as cash Rs. 600/- was recovered. Thereupon, the detenu was produced before the O.CKumbi Police Station along with written report and seized articles. Upon which a case was registered as F.I.R No. 15(4) 2015 Kumbi P.S under Section 18-B UA (P) Act. The detenu was remanded to jail custody. While the detenu was lodged at Central Jail, Sajiwa he was served with the detention order dated 07.09.2015 passed by the respondent No.2. Subsequently, grounds of detention along with the relevant documents were served on 11.09.2015. The grounds on which order of detention was passed are that the detenu had joined banned organization namely, Kangleipak Communist Party-Noyon faction (in short “KCP-Noyon”) in the month of April, 2011. The aim and object of the KCP is to secede the State of Manipur from the Union of India and create a sovereign independent State of Manipur. For this purpose, the said organization started procuring arms and ammunitions from foreign countries and recruited youngsters from various communities. In pursuant of their objectives, the members of the organization did commit series of heinous crimes like murder, dacoity robbery, extortion, kidnapping for ransom in different parts of Manipur. Ring leaders had established links with the foreign countries inimical to India and committed series of prejudicial activities affecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India. In order to achieve their objectives top leaders of underground organizations including KCP had held meeting for the formation of United Front of the armed organizations namely, Co-ordination Committee (in short “CorCom”). 4. Ring leaders had established links with the foreign countries inimical to India and committed series of prejudicial activities affecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India. In order to achieve their objectives top leaders of underground organizations including KCP had held meeting for the formation of United Front of the armed organizations namely, Co-ordination Committee (in short “CorCom”). 4. Further ground taken into consideration by the detaining authority is that the detenu after joining KCP-Noyon faction started working as over-ground member for the organization under the guidance of S/S Sgt. Major Pamheiba @ Boby Singh who was operating in Bishnupur and Imphal West District. The detenu being a bus driver started transporting new cadres of KCP (Noyon) to Moreh. At the instance of said Boby Singh, the detenu recruited new volunteers of KCP (Noyon) on the plea of offering jobs as salesman having good salary at Moreh and then took them to Moreh in the bus being driven by him at the time of school excursion. On arrival at Moreh, the detenu handed over the aforesaid new recruits to Boby Singh with whom the detenu and his brother always remained in touch through mobile phone. The said act of the detenu was prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. 5. On being satisfied that the act of the detenu was prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order a detention order was passed on 07.09.2015 (Annexure-A/1) by the District Magistrate, Bishnupur (respondent No.2). While serving the grounds of detention vide letter dated 11.09.2015, the detenu was called upon to submit his representation at the earliest so that the same be transmitted to the Government of Manipur as well as Ministry of Home Affairs Department of Internal Security, Government of India. Pursuant to that as the per case of the petitioner, representation in 5 (five) copies addressed to respondent No.2 were submitted requesting therein to revoke the order of detention but neither by the State Government nor the Central Government did pass order on the representation of the detenu. The order of detention on being approved by the State Government was subsequently confirmed. 6. The said order of detention its approval and confirmation have been challenged by the petitioner being the wife of the detenu on several grounds. However, during hearing of the case only one ground was pressed into service. 7. The order of detention on being approved by the State Government was subsequently confirmed. 6. The said order of detention its approval and confirmation have been challenged by the petitioner being the wife of the detenu on several grounds. However, during hearing of the case only one ground was pressed into service. 7. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the detenu while was served with the grounds of detention was called upon to submit the representation so that it be transmitted to the State Government and Central Government. Pursuant to that the representation in five copies were submitted but no decision was taken over either by the State Government or by the Central Government and thereby there has been denial of the constitutional right to the detenu. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his submission has referred to a decision rendered in the case of Amir Shad Khan-vs- L. Hminglian & Ors.: (1991) 4 SCC 39 . 8. As against this, Mr. A Vashum, learned G.A appearing for the State submits that since the detenu while submitting its representation had not made any prayer for sending the copy of the representation before the Central Government the same could not be sent it to the Central Government and thereby the detenu cannot claim that his constitutional right has been infringed. 9. The submission which was made on behalf of the State does not seem to be in consonance with the statement made in the affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the respondent No.3, i.e. Union of India. As from the statement made in the affidavit it does appear that the representation had been sent to the Central Government which would be evident from para No.4 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India which reads as follows: “That with regard, para nos.13 & 13.1 and ground para no.(g) of the petition, it is submitted that the Government of Manipur has sent a representation of the detenue vide letter No. 17(1) 29/2015-H dated 21.11.2015, but in the forwarding letter name of the detenue was mentioned Shri Ningthoujam Binoy Singh, but the representation attached therewith was Shri Thangjam Binoy Singh instead of Shri Ningthoujam Binoy Singh. The same was received by the Central Government in the concerned section of the Ministry of Home Affairs on 02.12.2015. The same was received by the Central Government in the concerned section of the Ministry of Home Affairs on 02.12.2015. The representation of the correct detenue and parawise comments on the representation were requested from the Govt. of vide wireless 15023/38/2015-NSA- dated message No.II/03.12.2015 & 15.12.2015 and a letter of even no. dated 08.01.2016 for the submission of copy of representation of the detenue Shri Ningthoujam Binoy Singh (Copies of each are enclosed as Annexure-C-1, C-2 & C-3). Representation of Shri Ningthoujam Binoy Singh and para wise comments on the said representation have not been received in the Ministry of Home Affairs till date. Hence, the representation of the detenue could not be decided by the Central Government.” From its perusal, it is evident that the representation was forwarded through a forwarding letter mentioned in the name of the detenu but the representation which was attached with it was with respect of another detenu and thereby upon finding the mistake the State Government was requested to send the representation of the detenu along with parawise comments. Since it was not submitted, no order has been passed by the Central Government on the representation filed by the detenu. In such event, the right of the detenu of revocation of order of detention an enshrined under Section 14 of the National Security Act, 1980 could not be considered and thereby denial of constitutional right of the detenu has been resulted. It be reiterated that admittedly the Central Government on account of the reason as stated above could not take decision on the representation but even where there happen to be delayed in forwarding the representation, Court has been pleased to hold that in that situation there has been deprivement of the valuable right of the detenu to have his detention revoked by the Government. In this respect we may refer to a decision rendered in the case of Haji Mohammad Akhlaq –vs District Magistrate, Meerut : 1988 Supp. SCC 538 wherein it has been observed as follows: “…3…. There can be no doubt whatever that there was unexplained delay on the part of the State Government in forwarding the representation to the Central Government with the result that the said representation was not considered by the Central Government till 16.10.1987 i.e. for a period of more than two months. There can be no doubt whatever that there was unexplained delay on the part of the State Government in forwarding the representation to the Central Government with the result that the said representation was not considered by the Central Government till 16.10.1987 i.e. for a period of more than two months. Section 14(1) of the Act confers upon the Central Government the power to revoke an order of detention even if it is made by the State Government on its officer. The power, in order to be real and effective, must imply a right in a detenu to make a representation to the Central Government against the order of detention. Thus, the failure of the State Government to compels with the request of the detenu for the award transmission of the representation to the Central Government has deprived the detenu of his valuable right to have his detention revoked by that Government”. 10. So far as the submission advanced on behalf of the State to the effect that the representation of the detenu could not be communicated to the Central Government as no such prayer was there in the representation is not tenable at all. Nature of duty imposed on the detaining authority under Article 22(5) in the context of extraordinary power of preventive detention is sufficient to indicate that strict compliance is necessary to justify interference with the personal liberty. In this regard, we may refer to a decision rendered in the case of Smt. Gracy-vs- State of Kerala & Anr.: (1991) 2 SCC 1 , wherein Their Lordships has observed that the nature of duty imposed upon the detaining authority under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India does indicate sufficiently that the State Authority is duty bound to forward the representation made by the detenu against the order of detention, 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. 11. 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. 11. In the instant the Central Government admittedly did not take any decision over the representation of the detenu and thereby there has been breach of the constitutional mandate as enshrined under Article 22(5) of the constitution and hence, the order of detention dated 07.09.2015 its approval and confirmation are hereby set aside. The detenu namely, Shri Ningthoujam Binoy Singh (39 yrs.) S/o N. Modhu Singh of Thanga Lawai Ward No.1, P.S- Moirang, District Bishnupur, Manipur is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other cases. Thus, this application stands allowed.