ORDER : (Sanjay Kumar, CJ.) 1. The petitioner9s husband, Thangboi Haokip @ TL. Jacob Thadou, was detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for brevity, 8the Act of 19809), by the District Magistrate, Chandel District, vide order dated 03.08.2021. She assails the said order and seeks a direction to the authorities to set her husband at liberty. 2. Heard Mr. L. Shashibhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Th. Vashum, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1, 2 & 4; and Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned Sr. PCCG, for respondent No. 3. 3. Mr. L. Shashibhushan, learned counsel, would urge three grounds of attack against the detention order. He would assert that illegible copies of the documents, relied upon by the detaining authority, were furnished to the detenu, contrary to the binding edict of law and case law. He would further assert that the Advisory Board, constituted under Section 9 of the Act of 1980, did not consider the validity of the subject detention within the time prescribed by law; and lastly, he would contend that the grounds of detention are vague. 4. Material produced by Mr. Th. Vashum, learned Government Advocate, manifests that the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the Act of 1980 did, in fact, consider the validity of the subject detention within time and submitted a Report on 23.08.2021, holding that sufficient cause existed for the detention. This ground of attack therefore does not merit consideration. We are also not inclined to sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, by examining and reviewing whether the grounds of detention, as framed, are vague. We find that the matter is amenable to disposal on the first ground of attack and another substantial ground that came to light during the course of the hearing. 5. As rightly pointed out by Mr. L. Shashibhushan, learned counsel, the documents supplied to the detenu, placed at pages 31, 32 & 42 of this petition, were blurred and illegible, being poor-quality photocopies. More so, the document at page 42. The detenu specifically raised this issue in his representation dated 09.08.2021 addressed to the District Magistrate, Chandel District. 5. As rightly pointed out by Mr. L. Shashibhushan, learned counsel, the documents supplied to the detenu, placed at pages 31, 32 & 42 of this petition, were blurred and illegible, being poor-quality photocopies. More so, the document at page 42. The detenu specifically raised this issue in his representation dated 09.08.2021 addressed to the District Magistrate, Chandel District. He stated therein that copies of the seizure memo, arrest memo and the statement of Thangkhumang Tauthang furnished to him along with the grounds of detention were illegible and that his request for furnishing legible copies of the same was not accepted. However, the District Magistrate, Chandel District, rejected this representation on 18.08.2021, baldly stating that the contents of the representation were carefully considered but the submissions made therein were devoid of merit. 6. Surprisingly, the representation of the detenu was not even placed before the Advisory Board. Be it noted that para 7 of the grounds of detention dated 04.08.2021 of the District Magistrate, Chandel District, clearly mentioned that the detenu had the right to make a representation and that the same would be placed before the Advisory Board. However, the Report of the Advisory Board, now placed on record, bears out that his representation was never placed before the Board. Section 10 of the Act of 1980 requires the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 thereof to consider not only the order and grounds of detention but also the representation, if any, made by the detenu. This statutory mandate was merely reflected in para 7 of the grounds of detention. It appears that the detenu appeared before the Advisory Board but for some inexplicable reason, he claimed that he did not make a representation. Even if there was such a lapse on his part, be it for whatever reason, the statutory duty cast on the authorities was to place his representation before the Advisory Board without fail. Evidently, this statutory duty was not carried out in the case on hand. That apart, it is well settled that legible copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority have to be made available to the detenu. [See Manjit Singh Grewal @ Gogi Vs. Union of India and Others: 1990 (Supp.) SCC 59 = 1990 SC (Cri) 608]. It is not even necessary for a detenu to make a demand in that regard. [See Manjit Singh Grewal @ Gogi Vs. Union of India and Others: 1990 (Supp.) SCC 59 = 1990 SC (Cri) 608]. It is not even necessary for a detenu to make a demand in that regard. However, in the case on hand, though such a demand was made by the detenu, his request for supply of legible documents was not acceded to. 7. As observed by this Court, time and again, in matters of preventive detention the mandate of the Constitution and the relevant laws seems to be adhered to more in default by detaining authorities in the State of Manipur. This unfortunate situation would be rectified if such detaining authorities are sensitized of what is required of them under the Constitution and the law, while exercising powers of preventive detention. Violation of binding procedural mandates results in automatic invalidation of the order of detention, irrespective of whether the detenu actually required to be subjected to such detention in public interest. This is because Constitutional guarantees under Article 22, which find resounding echoes in the statutes of preventive detention, would always assume primacy over the consideration of whether such detention was warranted in a particular case. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, setting aside the order of detention dated 03.08.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Chandel District, against Thangboi Haokip @ TL. Jacob Thadou and all subsequent proceedings basing thereon. In consequence, Thangboi Haokip @ TL. Jacob Thadou, presently incarcerated in Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa, shall be set at liberty forthwith unless his continued incarceration is validly required in connection with any other case. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order shall be supplied online or through whatsapp to the learned counsel for the parties.