The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of procedural safeguards and the requirement for the detaining authority to comply with the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980, including the filing of affidavit, timely disposal of representation, and placement of grounds of detention before the Advisory Board.

Aftab H. Saikia, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.C. Dey and Mr. A. Ganguly, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/detenue. Also heard Mr. H. Rahman, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India ('ASGI') representing the Union of India and Mr. P.S. Deka, the learned State counsel, Assam representing the State of Assam/respondent Nos. 2 to 6.

2. The District Magistrate Kamrup (Metropolitan) District Guwahati, ('the detaining authority') by his order dated 24.8.2007 in exercise of power conferred upon him under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 ('the Act'), ordered that the petitioner who was presently detained in the Central Jail, Guwahati, Assam be detained for a period of three months from the date of issue of that order. Such detention order was approved by the Government vide order dated 12.10.2007 whereby the detenu has been detained for a period of 12 months w.e.f. the date of his detention.

3. Both the orders dated 24.8.2007 and 12.10.2007 as referred to above are the subject-matters of challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition so preferred by the detenue/petitioner.

4. Primarily the order of detention and its subsequent approval as indicated above have been challenged on the following three grounds:

(a) The detaining authority himself has not filed affidavit rather the affidavit has been filed by the Additional District Magistrate, Kamrup (Metropolitan) District Guwahati who is not a competent authority to do so.

(b) The representation dated 30.8.2007 submitted by the petitioner through the Jail Authority, the receipt of which was acknowledged by the State Government on 31.8.2007, was disposed of on 14.9.2007 by rejecting the same after 14 days of unexplained inordinate delay.

(c) The impugned detention order was not placed before the Advisory Board within the stipulated three weeks' time from the date of detention of the detenu as contemplated under Section 10 of the Act, which provides : "Reference to Advisory Board. - Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, in every case where a detention order has been made under this Act, the appropriate Government shall, within three weeks from the date of detention of a person under the order, place before the Advisory Board constituted by it under Section 9, the grounds on which the order has been made and the representation, if any, made by the person affected by the order, and in case where the order has been made by an officer mentioned in Sub-section (3) of Section 3, also the report by such officer under Sub-section (4) of that section.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the detenue that when the impugned order of detention was passed by the detaining authority namely, Avinash Joshi, the affidavit has been filed by one Kumud Chandra Kalita who has been at the relevant period holding the post of Additional District Magistrate, Kamrup Metropolitan District, Guwahati. Although in paragraph-1 of the said affidavit filed on 14.5.2008 it was stated as under:

1. That the deponent is authorized and competent to swear this affidavit.

there is nothing on record, according to the learned Counsel representing the detenu, to apparently show that this officer has ever been duly authorised to swear such response. Under such circumstances, refuting all the contentions made in the affidavit filed by the officer concerned not being competent to do so, it is contended that the impugned detention order is itself vitiated.

6. To bolster up his submission strong reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in a case of Phukan Daimary @ Fungjarang v. State of Assam and Ors. 1998 (4) GLT 40. In the instant cited case this Court referring to a series of Supreme Court decision, namely, Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal 1975 (2) SCC 81; Shalini Soni v. Union of India (1980) (4) SCC 544 and Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner & Secretary Govt. of Kerala 1985 Supp. SCC 144, in paragraph 8 held as under:

8....The Detaining Authority has not filed any affidavit. The affidavit