Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J.

1. Heard Mr. I. Longjem, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Wotsa, learned GA and Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned CGC. In this proceeding, the detention order dated 20.11.2012, passed by the learned District Magistrate, Zunheboto detaining the petitioner under Sub- Section 3 the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act of 1980") as well as the order of approval passed by the State Govt. on 29.11.2012 have been called into question.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present proceeding are that one Shri Akheto Sumi, hereinafter referred to as the detenu/petitioner, is a resident of Purana Bazar, Dimapur. He sustains his livelihood by doing a petty business. On 16.11.2012, the detenu went to Zunheboto for attending some personal work and spents the night of 16th November at the residence of one of his acquaintances at Amiphoto Colony, Zunheboto Town.

3. At around 6 AM on 17.11.2012, some Assam Rifles personnel entered into the house, where he was staying at that time and searched such a house. In that connection, it has been alleged that during the search, some fire arms and ammunitions were recovered from the house, aforesaid. It was contended that those arms and ammunitions were of the detenu who was said to be a member of the GPRN/NSCN group. With the aforesaid allegations, he was apprehended and was handed over to the police.

4. Thereafter, a police case, being Zunheboto PS Case No. 44/12 under Sections 7/ 8 of NSR Act, 1962 read with Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act has been registered against the detenu. On 21.11.2012, the detenu was brought to the Central Jail at Dimapur and has been detained there ever since. When his brother carne to know about such detention, former came to the police station and learnt that his brother was detained under the Act of 1980.

5. He also came to know that the learned District Magistrate, Zunheboto by his order dated 20.11.2012 detained the detenu under the Act of 1980. It was stated that the said order was subsequently approved by the State Govt. vide its letter dated 29.11.2012. On the strength of the such an order, the detenu has been detained for a period of one year w.e.f. 20.11.2012.

6. Now, it has been contended that the aforesaid detention order was passed in gross violation of the various provisions incorporated in the Act of 1980. Referring to grounds of detention, it has been stated that as per Section 14 of the said Act, the detenu has a right to make a representation to (a) detaining authority, (b) the State Govt. and (c) the Central Govt.

7. But inspite of above statutory requirement, the detenu was not informed that he has a right to make representation to the District Magistrate, he being the detaining authority as well as to the Central Govt. In that connection, it has been pointed out that the Deputy Commissioner, being the detaining authority, has a right to revoke the Govt. detention order anytime before the approval of same by the State Govt.

8. Similarly the State Govt. has the authority to revoke the detention order passed by the District Magistrate. On the other hand, the Central Govt. too can revoke the detention order passed by the District Magistrate or State Govt. Since the detenu was not informed of that he has a right to make representation to the District Magistrate as well as to the Central Govt., the detention order in question, being illegal, is liable to be quashed.

9. It has also been argued that as per Section 8 of the 1980 Act, in normal circumstances, the grounds of detention needs to be communicated to the detenu within a period of five days but in exceptional circumstances, the grounds of detention may be communicated within ten days from the date of detention order.

10. But then reasons are to be recorded as to why the grounds of detention could not be communicated within a period of five days from the date of service of detention order on the detenu. However, this time limits t