JUDGMENT : Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri Ph. Sanajouba, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri Th. Vashum, learned Government Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Shri S. Suresh, learned ASG appearing for Respondent No. 3. 2. The order of detention dated 15/1/2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Churachandpur by which the petitioner's husband has been detained under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, is under challenge in this writ petition. 3.1 As per the grounds of detention, the petitioner's husband Shri Ngamkholen Khongsai alias Helen (hereinafter referred to as “the Detenu”) who was born and brought up at Khongtak Village, Kangpokpi District, had given up his studies after completion of Class-II standard due to financial problems. Thereafter, he was engaged in paddy field work and household duties. 3.2 Sometime in the year 2003, the detenu’s family left Khongtak Village, Kangpokpi District for Lhungtin Village, Saikul Sub-Division, Kangpokpi District and served as a Cook at KRA/KNO Camp at Lhungtin Village and while serving as a Cook, he became acquainted with Mr. David Hangsing, S/S Chairman of KRA/KNO and helped their leaders in acquiring new weapons/arms. In the year, 2016 the detenu’s family shifted to Salvaphai Village, Churachandpur District where he continued to indulge unlawful activities with leaders of KRA/KNO. 3.3 In the year 2017, the detenu was contacted by Shri David Hangsing to help him in buying 5 (five) numbers of AK-56 Rifles from Shri T. Lianpau Zou and as a follow up, the detenu went to the house of Shri T. Lianpau Zou and had a look at 5 (five) AK-56 Rifles which were found wrapped with clothes. After having checked the quality of the said AK-56 Rifles, he informed Mr. David Hangsing about it and in turn, Mr. David Hangsing gave him Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) as his commission/fee. 3.4 On 28/12/2017 while the detenu was having dinner together with Mr. Kapsianmang's family, a combined team of 25th Assam Rifles and the personnel of Churachandpur Police raided the house and asked them to produce the Rifles, whereupon the detenu disclosed that he had hidden two AK Rifles in a paddy field inside the heap of straws which were duly recovered by them. Accordingly, the detenu, Mr. Kapsianmang and Mrs. Kapsianmang's family, a combined team of 25th Assam Rifles and the personnel of Churachandpur Police raided the house and asked them to produce the Rifles, whereupon the detenu disclosed that he had hidden two AK Rifles in a paddy field inside the heap of straws which were duly recovered by them. Accordingly, the detenu, Mr. Kapsianmang and Mrs. Celena Hatkholhing were arrested along with the seized items and were thereafter handed over to the O.C, Churachandpur P.S with a written report and on the strength of the said report, the O.C, Churachandpur registered a case under FIR No. 115(12)2017, Churachandpur P.S u/s 34 IPC & 25(1-C) Arms Act. During the course of investigation, the detenu was arrested formally in connection with three other cases and remanded to police custody till 5/1/2018 and while in custody, he was detained vide order dated 15/1/2018, impugned herein, on the ground that he was an over-ground worker of the armed underground organization, namely Kuki Revolutionary Army (KRA) which was involved in smuggling of sophisticated arms having serious ramifications for the national security being subversive and detrimental to public tranquility and prejudicial to maintenance of public order. 4. The instant writ petition (cril) has been filed by the wife of the detenu challenging the validity and correctness of the order of detention dated 15/1/2018 on various grounds mentioned therein. But during the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has confined his argument only to one ground that the District Magistrate, Churachandpur District, Respondent No. 2 has failed to make copies of the detenu’s representation and forward the same to the State Government and the Central Government, as a result of which his representation has not been considered by them resulting in the violation of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In order to support his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Amir Shad Khan Vs. L. Hmingliana & ors., (1991) 4 SCC 39 . 5. In order to support his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Amir Shad Khan Vs. L. Hmingliana & ors., (1991) 4 SCC 39 . 5. Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India reads as under:- “22(5) When a person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.” It is not in dispute that the detenu, the husband of the petitioner, was detained vide order dated 15/1/2018 which was approved on 25/1/2018 and confirmed on 12/3/2018. While in custody, the detenu submitted a representation dated 12-03-2018 to the District Magistrate, Churachandpur District, the respondent No. 2 requesting it to revoke/cancel the order of detention which was rejected by it. A specific prayer was also made to it to make copies of the representation and forward the same to the State Government and the Central Government. The District Magistrate, in its affidavit, has stated that the representation of the detenu was furnished to the State Government on 17-03-2018 but there is no denial at all about the allegation that no copy of his representation was furnished to the Central Government. Moreover, in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Government, it has been categorically stated that no representation by the detenu or on his behalf was received by the concerned section of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. 6. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has some force and merit. The facts of the present case are identical to that of the Amir Shad Khan case (supra) wherein the appellants had made a request to the Detaining Authority to take out copies of their representation and forward them to the State Government as well as the Central Government for consideration. The Detaining Authority appears to have failed to do the needful but the stand of the Detaining Authority as well as the State Government was that no such duty was cast upon them. Allowing the appeals, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the detention orders on this single ground and held as under: “10. The Detaining Authority appears to have failed to do the needful but the stand of the Detaining Authority as well as the State Government was that no such duty was cast upon them. Allowing the appeals, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the detention orders on this single ground and held as under: “10. It must be realised that when a person is placed under detention he has certain handicaps and if he makes a request that a representation prepared by him may be forwarded to the Central Government as well as the State Government for consideration after taking out copies thereof it would be a denial of his right to represent to the Central Government if the Detaining Authority as well as the State Government refuse to accede to his request and omit to forward his representation to the Central Government for consideration. It is difficult to understand why such a technical and rigid view should be taken by the concerned authorities in matters of personal liberty where a person is kept in preventive detention without trial. Detenus may be literate or illiterate, they may have access to legal advice or otherwise, they may or may not be in a position to prepare more than one copy of the representation and if they make a request to the authorities which have the facilities to take out copies to do so and forward them for consideration to the Central Government, would it be just and fair to refuse to do so? In such circumstances refusal to accede to their request would be wholly unreasonable and in total disregard of the right conferred on the detenu by Article 22(5) of the Constitution read with Section 11 of the Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Detaining Authority as well as the State Government were not justified in taking a hyper technical stand that they were under no obligation to take out copies of the representations and forward them to the Central Government. We think that this approach on the part of the Detaining Authority and the State Government has robbed the appellants of their constitutional right under Article 22(5) read with Section 11 of the Act to have their representation considered by the Central Government. The request of the detenus was not unreasonable. We think that this approach on the part of the Detaining Authority and the State Government has robbed the appellants of their constitutional right under Article 22(5) read with Section 11 of the Act to have their representation considered by the Central Government. The request of the detenus was not unreasonable. On the contrary the action of the Detaining Authority and the State Government was unreasonable and resulted in a denial of the appellants’ constitutional right. The impugned detention orders are, therefore, liable to be quashed.” 7. On perusal of the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that the issue involved herein is squarely covered by it and since the detenu has been denied the right of his representation being considered by the Central Government as contemplated in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed by us. Accordingly, we allow the instant writ petition and consequently, quash and set aside the order of detention dated 15/1/2018; order of approval dated 25/1/2018 and order of confirmation dated 12/3/2018 with the direction that Mr. Ngamkholen Khongsai @ Helen, 36 years, S/o Late Mr. Tongkhothang Khongsai of Salvaphai Village, Sangaikot Sub-Division, Churachandpur, Manipur shall be released forthwith, if his custody is not required in any other case.