JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. P. B. Paul, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Livika, the learned Government Advocate, Nagaland and Mr. Yangerwati, the learned CGC. 2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the orders of detention of her husband namely Mr. Elithung Lotha (in short detinue) and continuation of same, whereby the detinue was put under detention in exercise of power under the provision of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short NSA). 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as under:- (i) The detinue was arrested on 02.09.2021 in connection with Dimapur East PS Case No. 0141/2021 registered under Sections 186/353/384/506 IPC read with section 7 of NSR. Such FIR was lodged by one Hav. Thepuso Chakesang, inter alia alleging that detinue was in possession of incriminating materials to make extortion at Super Market Area. It was a further case that during body search of the detinue, two numbers of notepad in the name of NPGN/NNC (NA), two tax slips and extorted cash of Rs. 2150/- were recovered. (ii) Thereafter, the detinue was released on bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur by order dated 24.09.2021. (iii) Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-I, Dimapur (in short DCP), by communication dated 27.09.2021, initiated a proposal for detention of husband of the petitioner under Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the NSA and requested the Commissioner of Police, Dimapur (in short CP) for necessary action. Such proposal was initiated on the basis of the FIR registered on 02.09.2021 and recovery of the documents from the possession of the detinue as stated hereinabove. (iv) The ground of detention so proposed, as reflected in the proposal of DCP dated 27.09.2021, is that the detinue is an active member of armed organization NNC (NA), he is part of a large extortion syndicate and extorting money in the name of armed organization and such activity is leading to price rise of essential commodities and services and thus the detinue is acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of supplies and services essential to the communities. The further ground of detention is that the demand letter recovered from the possession of the detinue indicates that the detinue is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and security of the State. The further ground of detention is that the demand letter recovered from the possession of the detinue indicates that the detinue is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and security of the State. (v) It is also a case that the witnesses were examined during investigation have supported the allegation. The said proposal contained a copy of the FIR, the Arrest Memo, the Seizure Memo, Photograph of the accused, detailed report of the I.O. and the joint interrogation. (vi) Thereafter, the CP cum District Magistrate, Dimapur vide its communication dated 27.09.2021, forwarded the same to the Special Secretary, Home for approval. The said communication recites the facts as described by the DCP in his proposal and the CP expressed his satisfaction that the case is fit for detention of the accused under Section 3(2) of the NSA. (vii) Thereafter, the CP issued the order of detention dated 27.09.2021 in exercise of power under Section 3 (3) of NSA on the ground that detention is necessary under Section 3(2) of NSA. (viii) The ground of detention is stated to be security of the State of Nagaland and maintenance of public orders. The said order contains the ground of detention as Annexure B, Annexure C Schedule. The said order of detention was served upon the detinue on 30.09.2021. (ix) Subsequently, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland issued an order dated 06.10.2021, in exercise of his power conferred by Section (3)2 of NSA, ordering detention of the detinue and further directing him to be kept in Central Jail, Dimapur for a initial period of three months with effect from the date of detention i.e. till 26.12.2021. (x) Thereafter on 11.10.2021, the detinue submitted a representation before the Special Secretary, Home, Nagaland requesting revocation of detention order. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, by order dated 25.10.2021 rejected the prayers made in such representation on the ground that the Government is satisfied with the detention and there is no merit in the said representation. (xi) In the meantime, the petitioner also filed a representation before the Union of India, Department of Home on 11.10.2021 which was rejected by Wireless Message dated 03.11.2021. (xii) Thereafter, in exercise of power under Section 12(1) of NSA, the Chief Secretary, confirmed the detention order and further extended the period of detention till 26.03.2022. 4. Mr. (xi) In the meantime, the petitioner also filed a representation before the Union of India, Department of Home on 11.10.2021 which was rejected by Wireless Message dated 03.11.2021. (xii) Thereafter, in exercise of power under Section 12(1) of NSA, the Chief Secretary, confirmed the detention order and further extended the period of detention till 26.03.2022. 4. Mr. P. B. Paul, the learned counsel representing the petitioner submits:- (i) There is violation of Section 3(5) of the NSA, inasmuch as the detention order was made on 27.09.2021 and same was intimated to the Central Government on 06.10.2021 and therefore the period of seven days has been breached and accordingly the detention order is liable to be set aside. (ii) There is total non application of mind, the same is reflected from the proposal dated 27.09.2021 which proposes the detention on the basis of Section 3(1) and Section 3(2) of NSA inasmuch as no ground whatsoever is cited under Section 3(1)(a) and (b) of NSA. The detention order dated 27.09.2021 issued by the CP is the replica of the proposal and no independent application of mind is discernable from such order of DCP. Same is the case relating to the order dated 06.10.2021 of the Chief Secretary approving the detention order. (iii) The satisfaction of the detaining authority while issuing the order of detention is based on no cogent material and same has been issued only on the basis of the FIR, the Arrest Memo, the Seizure Memo and Report of I.O. Therefore, the detention order is result of total non application of mind. 5. Ms. Livika, the learned State Counsel representing the State of Nagaland while relying on the affidavit filed by the State respondents submits the following:- (i) There is no procedural lapse while issuing the detention orders/approval challenged in the present writ petition. The detention order was duly served upon the detinue within the period prescribed and explaining his right of representation. (ii) There is no violation of Section 3(5) of the NSA as the State Government approved the detention order on 06.10.2021 through its Chief Secretary and the same was intimated to the Central Government on the same date i.e. on 06.10.2021. (iii) The detention orders including the proposal for detention and the order of approval by the State Government reflects subjective satisfaction for the detention based on material available on record. (iii) The detention orders including the proposal for detention and the order of approval by the State Government reflects subjective satisfaction for the detention based on material available on record. Therefore, the writ court in exercise of its jurisdiction Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not like to re-appreciate such material to come into a different conclusion and substitute the subjective satisfaction of the detaining and approving authorities. 6. Mr. Yangerwati, the learned CGC adopts the argument advanced by Ms. Livika, the learned State Counsel and further submits that the Central Government acted promptly on the receipt of the communication of the Chief Secretary dated 06.10.2021 and also replied to the representation preferred by the detinue within time. Therefore, there is no procedural laps on the part of the Central Government and there is no violation of any Constitutional right of the detinue. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the materials available on record including the record of the Home Department, Political Branch relating to the detention of the detinue as produced by Ms. Livika, the learned State Counsel. 8. By now, the law is well settled that generally procedural requirement are the only safeguard available to the detinue since the Court is not expected to go behind the subjective satisfaction of detaining authority until and unless, the same is a result of non application of mind or detention order is issued on the basis of irrelevant materials and facts. It is also well settled that since the power of preventive detention is an extra ordinary power, the same need be exercised strictly in accordance with the provision of the Constitution and the law in this regard. 9. The Right to the life and personal liberty is placed on a much higher pedestral and whenever there is any deprivation of such rights, the authority who deprives such rights of a citizen must thoroughly justify the Court that it has acted in accordance with law. The Constitutional court of India have always regarded personal liberty as the most precious possession of mankind. The burden of showing that the detention is in accordance with the procedure established by law, is always on the detaining authority inasmuch as Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandates for the same. 10. The Constitutional court of India have always regarded personal liberty as the most precious possession of mankind. The burden of showing that the detention is in accordance with the procedure established by law, is always on the detaining authority inasmuch as Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandates for the same. 10. The law of preventive detention has empowered the administrative authorities a kind of discretionary power to order preventive detention and there is very little scope for judicial review of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. However, as the preventive detention affects the most precious right of human being i.e. the right of life and liberty, therefore, the court must jealously safeguard such rights and must see whether such discretionary power has been used within the parameters prescribed by law. 11. The Scheme of NSA and Procedural Safeguard: The procedural safeguard necessary for determination of the present case can be summarized in the following manner:- (i) Section 3(3) of the NSA vests power upon the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police to pass detention order when it is satisfied with the existence of condition(s) as enumerated under Section 3(2) of the NSA. The period of detention needs to be specified in the order. However, in the first instance it should not exceed three months. The proviso to Section 3(3) of the NSA, mandates that the State Government may after satisfaction extend such order for such period not exceeding three months at a time. (ii) Section 3(4) of the NSA mandates that, when an order is made under Section 3(3) of the NSA, the Officer passing the order shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government along with the ground on which the detention order was made, including other particulars having a bearing on the matter. (iii) The order of detention passed under Section 3(3) of the NSA shall have a life for twelve days from the date of the order unless approved by the State Government. This twelve days can be extended upto fifteen days if circumstances as mandated under Section 3(4) of the NSA exists. (iv) Section 3(5) of the NSA mandates that the order of detention or order of approval needs to be reported to the Central Government within seven days from date of issuance. This twelve days can be extended upto fifteen days if circumstances as mandated under Section 3(4) of the NSA exists. (iv) Section 3(5) of the NSA mandates that the order of detention or order of approval needs to be reported to the Central Government within seven days from date of issuance. (v) Section 8 of the NSA mandates that the grounds of order of detention be disclosed to the detinue, as soon as possible but not later than five days. Such time can be extended upto ten days from the date of detention in exceptional circumstances and for reason to be recorded in writing. The detinue is given a liberty to make representation against the order of detention to the appropriate Government. (vi) Section 9 of the NSA provides for Constitution of Advisory Board and the Advisory Board is empowered to scrutinize the detention order and the representation of the detinue. (vii) Section 10 of the NSA dictates that the appropriate Government need to place the detention order along with the representation made by the detinue and the ground on which the detention order was passed within three weeks from the date of order of detention. (viii) Sections 11 and 12 of the NSA prescribes the procedure of Advisory Board. 12. From the above, it is clear that the NSA mandates certain stages of decision making process with time limit. 13. Whether there is any procedural lapse on the part of the State: (I) In view of the aforesaid mandate of NSA, now let this Court look into the facts of the case on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, documents annexed with the writ petition as well as by the respondents in their counter and on the basis of the records made available to this Court. From the aforesaid materials, the following undisputed fact emerges. 02.09.2021 Detinue was arrested in connection with Dimapur East P.S. Case No. 0141/2021. Continued to be police custody. 24.09.2021 Detinue was released on bail by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur. 27.09.2021 DCP initiated proposal for detention under Section 3(1),(2) of NSA. 27.09.2021 CP cum DM forwards the proposal to the Home Department. 27.09.2021 CP cum DM issues the detention order under Section 3(3) of NSA. 30.09.2021 Detention order dated 27.09.2021 served upon the detinue. 06.10.2021 Chief Secretary issues order under Section 3(2) of the NSA. 27.09.2021 DCP initiated proposal for detention under Section 3(1),(2) of NSA. 27.09.2021 CP cum DM forwards the proposal to the Home Department. 27.09.2021 CP cum DM issues the detention order under Section 3(3) of NSA. 30.09.2021 Detention order dated 27.09.2021 served upon the detinue. 06.10.2021 Chief Secretary issues order under Section 3(2) of the NSA. 06.10.2021 Intimates the Central Government under Section 3(5) of the NSA. 10.10.2021 Detention order dated 06.10.2021 is served upon the detinue. 11.10.2021 Detinue submits representation before the State Government as well as the Central Government. 25.10.2021 State Government rejected the representation of the detinue. 27.10.2021 Central Government received the representation of the detinue. 03.11.2021 Detinue received rejection of representation by the Central Government. (II) From the aforesaid, it is clear that time and procedure as mandated and as discussed aforesaid provided under Sections 3(3) & 3(4), 8, 9 and 10 of NSA has duly been complied with while issuing the detention order. (III) The detention order was made on 27.09.2021 and same was approved by the Chief Secretary on 06.10.2021 and report of the fact of detention was reported to the Central Government by the Chief Secretary on 06.10.2021. (IV) Such information is required to be given to the Central Government within seven days from any order of detention is made or from such detention order is approved by the State Government. Therefore, in the case in hand, there is a gap of 10 (ten) days from the order of detention made on 27.09.2021 by CP cum DM and intimation was given to the Central Government on 06.10.2021, though intimation was made on the date of approval of the State Government i.e. on 06.10.2021. (V) The language of Section 3(5) of the NSA makes it crystal clear that intimation is to be made within seven days either when any order of detention is made under Section 3(3) of the NSA or when the order of detention is approved by the State Government under Section 3(4) of the NSA. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the provisions of Section 3(5) of the NSA, has not been adhered to by the detaining authority and non compliance of such mandatory provision renders the detention illegal. 14. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the provisions of Section 3(5) of the NSA, has not been adhered to by the detaining authority and non compliance of such mandatory provision renders the detention illegal. 14. Subjective satisfaction and application of mind: (I) As stated hereinabove, it is settled proposition of law that it is not mandatory for the detaining authority to record its subjective satisfaction in the detention order but such subjective satisfaction cannot be based on irrelevant materials and grounds. Application of mind in mechanical manner and subjective satisfaction derived from such application of mind can always be judicially reviewed by the Constitutional Courts. The duty of the sponsoring authority is to collect the relevant materials and place it before the detaining authority. The detaining authority is to apply its own mind to arrive at its subjective satisfaction on the basis of materials placed before it. Though sufficiency of materials placed before the authority cannot be judicially reviewed but relevancy of material can be seen by the Courts while making judicial review of the detention order. (II) The office note dated 04.10.2021, signed by the Special Secretary (Home) on the basis of which the impugned order of detention dated 06.10.2021 was issued is to the following effect:- “….. the accused person is in judicial custody lodged in Central Jail. If he is released on bail, he may likely to indulge in illegal activities, which is prejudicial to the security of the State and maintaining public order.” (III) The fact remains that on the date of proposal for detention and on the date of the order of detention issued by the CP dated 27.09.2021, the detinue was already released on bail by a competent Court of law by its order dated 24.09.2021. Therefore, the office note quoted hereinabove is the result of total non application of mind inasmuch as there cannot have any satisfaction that the detinue is under judicial custody and likely to be enlarged on bail. The record reveals that the detinue was not under judicial custody in any other case and the said office note was based on Dimapur East P.S. Case No. 0141/2021. Thus this Court is of the considered opinion that the detention order dated 06.10.2021 is result of total non application of mind and the same is liable to be interfered. 15. The record reveals that the detinue was not under judicial custody in any other case and the said office note was based on Dimapur East P.S. Case No. 0141/2021. Thus this Court is of the considered opinion that the detention order dated 06.10.2021 is result of total non application of mind and the same is liable to be interfered. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, decisions and reasons, the detention order dated 27.09.2021 and the approval dated 06.10.2021 and all other subsequent orders extending the detention of the detinue are set aside and quashed. The detinue be released forthwith, if he is not under custody in any other proceeding. 16. The case record furnished by Ms. Livika, the learned Government Advocate is returned to her.