JUDGMENT : Kh. Nobin Singh, J. Heard Shri P. Tomcha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Athouba Khaidem, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning and challenging the validity and correctness of the order of detention dated 22-08-2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Kangpokpi District, Manipur. 3.1 As per the grounds of detention, the petitioner joined the armed gang namely, Kuki National Front-President faction (hereinafter referred to as "the KNF-P") which is under Suspension of Operation (hereafter referred to as "SoO") with the Government, as a member in the year, 2013 through Mr. Hengul Kipgen of Pangjang Village, S/S Camp Commander of Ebenezer Camp, Natheljang. The aims and objects of the KNF-(P) are to bring all the Kukis under one administrative unit called "the Zalengam' and in the pursuit of its objectives, its members do commit series of heinous crimes in different parts of Manipur. 3.2 After having joined the said KNF-(P), he went to Ebenezer Camp, Natheljang and stayed there doing his routine works such as fetching water, collecting fire woods from nearby jungles, cooking, etc. There were about 150 registered and unregistered cadres including the petitioner with arms under the command of Mr. Hengul Kipgen. The cadres who are enlisted under the SoO, enjoyed facilities being provided by the State Government while the unregistered cadres got Rs. 500/- (rupees five hundred) per month from the end of the camp commander although the petitioner got Rs. 4,000/- (rupees four thousand) per month as his stipend. 3.3 Although there is a SoO with the Government, the cadres of KNF-(P) including the petitioner, carried out prejudicial activities such as extortion of money from general public, kidnapping of person for ransom, collection of unauthorised house tax from the villagers as well as road tax from the vehicles plying on the National Highways etc. The money so extorted by them would be used in procuring arms and ammunitions from foreign countries for using the same while carrying out prejudicial activities. Over and above, the cadres of KNF-(P) including the petitioner, discussed in length about the infiltration of cadres of rival faction and in particular, KRA in their stronghold area and decided to carryout patrolling in and around Kangpokpi, G-Saparmeina, Saikul areas in order to trap them and inflict capital punishment. Over and above, the cadres of KNF-(P) including the petitioner, discussed in length about the infiltration of cadres of rival faction and in particular, KRA in their stronghold area and decided to carryout patrolling in and around Kangpokpi, G-Saparmeina, Saikul areas in order to trap them and inflict capital punishment. 3.4 On 05-05-2017 at about 02:00 a.m. the cadres of KNF-(P) including the petitioner kidnapped three KRA cadres namely, Mr. Ngamlet Haokip, Mr. Satlhun Haokip and Mr. Jangkholun Haokip from the house of the latter located at Khoken Village and killed two of them namely, Mr. Ngamlet Haokip and Mr. Satlhun Haokip at a place near N. Boljang Village. A case under FIR No. 8(5)2017 G-SPM-P.S under section 302/365/400 IPC & 25(1-C) Arms Act had been registered which was later transferred to SP-CID Crime Branch for investigation vide order dated 25-07-2017 issued by the DGP, Manipur. Such acts of unauthorized collection of road taxes from the vehicles plying on National Highway-02 and of murder carried out by the petitioner and his associates gave panic, terror wave and perils to the lives of general public which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 3.5 On 15-06-2017 a column of 38th Assam Rifles, led by Major Irfan Huda with a police team of Kangpokpi PS, carried out a joint inspection at the Natheljang SoO camp of KNF-(P) located near Kholjang Village, Kangpokpi District from 11:00 hrs. to 15:30 hrs and during the course of inspection, the unauthorized warlike stores were recovered and twenty-six unregistered cadres of KNF-(P) including the petitioner, were apprehended from the camp. Thereafter, the petitioner and his associates were handed over to the O.C, Imphal PS with a written report and seized articles at 11:40 p.m. on the same day and on the strength of the said report, the O.C, Imphal PS registered a regular case under FIR No. 181(6)2017 Imphal PS under section 400 IPC, 25(1-C)A. Act & 6 IWT Act. During the course of investigation, the said case was transferred to Kangpokpi PS on 16-06-2017 at 10:30 am as the place of occurrence falls under the Kangpokpi jurisdiction and accordingly, an FIR No. 21(6)2017 Kangpokpi PS under section 400 IPC, 25(1-C)A. Act & 6 IWT Act was registered again but the same had been transferred to SP-CID Crime Branch for investigation vide order dated 16-06-2017 issued by the DGP, Manipur. Since the petitioner and his associates were arrested in connection with the said case, they were remanded to police custody till 27-06-2017 on which they were formally arrested in connection with the FIR No. 8(5)2017 G-SPM/PS under section 302/365/400 IPC & 25(1-C) A. Act and were remanded to judicial custody on 07-07-2017. While in custody, the petitioner and his associates were detained under sub-section 3 of section 3 of the National Security Act vide various order dated 22-08-2017 issued by the District Magistrate, Kangpokpi District, Manipur. 4. The present petition is contested by the respondents by filing two affidavits-in-opposition-one, by the District Magistrate, the respondent No. 1 and two, by the Under Secretary (Home) on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 wherein the averments made in the petition have been denied and in addition thereto, it has been stated that based on the police report and after due consideration of the relevant documents and materials furnished by the police, the District Magistrate, Kangpokpi being satisfied that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and security of the State and is likely to continue to act in such a manner, passed the order of detention to prevent the petitioner from acting in such a manner. The grounds of detention along with the relevant documents were served upon the petitioner and after due consideration of the grounds of detention and other relevant documents, the order of detention was approved and confirmed by the State Government. 5. The grounds of detention along with the relevant documents were served upon the petitioner and after due consideration of the grounds of detention and other relevant documents, the order of detention was approved and confirmed by the State Government. 5. Although as many as nineteen grounds have been taken in the writ petition, Shri P. Tomcha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the course of hearing, has advanced his arguments only in respect of four grounds which are as under: (a) The grounds of detention and the representation submitted by the petitioner were not placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks from the date of detention as prescribed in section 10 of the National Security Act, 1980; (b) All the persons who were arrested on 15-06-2017 and later, detained by the Detaining Authority along with the petitioner on similar grounds, have been released by this court on the ground of violation of the provisions under section 10 of the National Security Act, 1980; (c) The State Government has failed to consider and dispose of the representation dated nil, but was forwarded on 05-09-2017, submitted by the petitioner; (d) There was no material before the Detaining Authority to come to the conclusion that the petitioner, if not detained, is likely to indulge in the activities prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. 6.1 Since the grounds (a) and (b) are related to each other, they are being considered together by this court. The provisions of section 10 of the National Security Act, 1980 which are unambiguous and require no interpretation at all, provides that the appropriate Government shall, within three weeks from the date of detention, place before the Advisory Board the grounds of detention and the representation, if any, made by the detenu for consideration. It is well settled that the provisions of the said Act have to be scrupulously followed and strictly complied with and non-compliance thereof will definitely prejudice the right of the detenu. 6.2 It is not in dispute that the petitioner along with 25 others were arrested on 15-05-2017 in connection with a case under FIR No. 181(6)2017 IPS under section 400 IPC & 25(1-C) A Act & 6 WIT Act and thereafter, they were formally arrested in connection with a case under FIR No. 8(5)2017 G-SPM-PS under section 302/365/400 IPC & 25 (1-C) A Act. While in custody, they were detained vide various order dated 22-08-2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Kangpokpi. Therefore, it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that almost all of them have been released by this court on the ground of violation of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act and in order to substantiate his contention, he has placed reliance on the order dated 07-02-2018 passed by this court in W.P. (Crl) No. 21 of 2017, Mr. Haukholen Kipgen v. The District Magistrate, Kangpokpi. It has further been submitted that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by it. It may be noted that the said order 07-02-2018 has been passed by this court on the admission made by the respondents that the grounds of detention and the representation were placed before the Advisory Board beyond three weeks of detention on 22-08-2017. But in respect of the present case, it has been vehemently submitted by the learned Government Advocate that since the grounds of detention and the representation were placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks, there is no question of violation of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed by this court. 6.3 In the affidavits-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents, it is nowhere mentioned as to when the grounds of detention and the representation were placed before the Advisory Board, although it is stated in the confirmation order dated 13-10-2017 that the Advisory Board, in its meeting held on 22-09-2017 and 06-01-2017, considered it and opined that there was sufficient cause for detention. In order to find out the date on which they have been placed before the Advisory Board, the Government file was called for and on perusal thereof namely File No. 17/1(41)/2017-H, it is seen that copies of the order of detention, the report of the District Magistrate, the grounds of detention and the approval order dated 01-09-2017 were furnished to the Chairman, Advisory Board vide a letter dated 01-09-2017 of the Under Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur but the copy of the representation submitted by the petitioner was forwarded to the Chairman, Advisory Board only on 20-09-2017 vide a letter dated 20-09-2017 of the Under Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur and that too, only after a proposal being made in the file for the said purpose vide Note-10 on 19-09-2017. 7. It is thus clear that the representation of the petitioner was not placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks from the date of detention which is nothing but a blatant violation of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act. In view of the above, this court is of the opinion that the violation of this provision has prejudiced the right of the petitioner and therefore, this court has no any other option but to quash the order of detention dated 22-08-2017 on the ground of violation of section 10 of the National Security Act, 1980. 8. Since this court has expressed its opinion that the order of detention can be quashed only on the grounds as aforesaid, the remaining grounds need not be adverted to by this court. 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant writ petition is allowed with the direction that Mr. Lalkhosem Kipgen, 22 years, S/o Mr. Janglam Kipgen of K. Sajal Village, P.S. Kangpokpi, District-Kangpokpi, Manipur shall be released forthwith if he is not required to be detained in connection with any other case (s). There shall be no order as to costs.