JUDGMENT

DUTT, J.:- In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of the detention order dated January 19, 1989 passed under the National Security Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as the Act, by virtue of which the petitioner has been under detention since the said date. The allegations made in the grounds of detention need not be stated for only legal submissions have been made on behalf of the petitioner in challenging the order of detention. The order of detention dated January 19, 1989 reads as follows:

"WHEREAS, I, Vijay Karan, Commissioner of Police, Delhi, am satisfied that with a view to prevent Sh. Jitender Tyagi s/o Sh. Ram Nath Tyagi, R/o Vill. Khajuri, Police Station Kila, Distt. Meerut (Uttar Pradesh) aged at about 25/26 from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make an order directing that the said Sh. Jitender Tyagi may be detained.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred vide sub-section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 as delegated to me vide Delhi Administration, Delhis order No. F.2/1/88-H.P. II, dated 11-1-89 I hereby direct that the said Sh. Jitender Tyagi be detained and kept in Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi."

2. It, thus appears from the order of detention that it was passed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act as delegated to him by the Delhi Administration. The order of detention was approved by the Administrator of Delhi by his order dated January 31, 1989. Paragraph 3 of the said order is in the following terms:

"3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by sub-section (4) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, the Administrator hereby approves the order of the Police Commissioner dated 19-1-89 detaining Sh. Jitender Tyagi and further directs that Sh. Jitender Tyagi be kept in custody in Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi."

3. The first point that has been strenuously urged by Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is that the order of detention not having been approved within a period of twelve days, as provided in sub-section (4) of section 3 of the Act, it had spent its force on the expiry of the said period and, accordingly, the detention of the petitioner is illegal. Section 3 of the Act provides for the power to make orders of detention under certain circumstances. Sub-section (4) of section 3 reads as follows:

"(4). When any order is made under this section by an officer mentioned in sub-section (3), he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government to which he is subordinate together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government:

Provided that where under Section 8 the grounds of detention are communicated by the officer making the order after five days but not later than ten days from the date of. detention, this sub-section shall apply subject to the modification that, for the words "twelve days", the words "fifteen days" shall be substituted."

4. Under sub-section (4) of section 3, "no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government". The question that arises for our consideration relates to the computation of the period of twelve days. To be more explicit, the question is whether in computing the period of twelve days, the day on which the order of detention is passed should be included or not. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the day on which the order of detention was passed should be included and the order approving the detention having been passed on January 31, 1989, that is, on the thirtee