This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying mainly for setting aside the order of detention dated 29.12.2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West , Manipur as well as its confirmation order dated 10.2.2006 passed by the State Government.

2. The impugned order dated 29.12.2005 was passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur directing to detain Huidrom Priyokumar Singh under the National Security Act until further order purportedly with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The State Government approved the said detention order dated 07.1.2006. Thereafter, the State Government , vide the impugned order dated 10.2.2006 , confirmed the said detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur and fixed the period of detention as 12 months from the date of detention.

3. Heard Mr.Ch.Ngongo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.R.S.Reisang, learned Addl.GA for the respondents 1,2, and 3 as well as Mr. K.Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4. We have also perused the materials before the court including the relevant files produced on behalf of the respondent No.4 and the Government respondents.

4. 3(three) main grounds have been submitted by the petitioner's counsel challenging the legality of the impugned detention order dated 29.12.2005 and its confirmation order dated 10.2.2006. They are : (1) that the respondent No.4 did not consider under section 14 of the National Security Act on the report sent by the respondent No.2 under section 3(5) of the National Security Act ; (2) that the respondent No.2 did not forward the approved report to the respondent No.4 as required under section 3(5) of the National Security Act ; (3) that even if there was consideration of the report submitted under section 3(5) of the National Security Act it was not done with reasonable expedition.

5. We have considered the submissions of the petitioner's counsel in the light of the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Hitendra Nath Goswami v. State of Assam and ors, 1984 Cril.L.J. 1558 wherein the Full Bench, while dealing with the exercise of discretionary power of the Central Government under section 14(1) in the context of section 3(5) of the National Security Act held at Para 22 and 23 as follows :-

“22. It is for the Central Government to revoke or not the detention order in exercise of its discretionary power under S.14 (1) of the Act, on receipt of the report from the State Government; but to borrow the words of Lord Pearce in Padfield's case (1968-1 All ER 694), the Central Government cannot 'throw it unread into the waste paper basket'. The report is intended to be considered with reasonable expedition; any delay in the matter due to negligence, callous inaction, avoidable red-tapism and unduly protracted procrastination would defeat the intention of the Parliament. See Sabir Ahmed (1980-3 SCC 295) (supra). As such, non consideration of the report by the Central Government with expedition would be a breach of the procedural safeguard provided by the Act, as an additional check against the improper exercise of power of detention by the detaining authority and thereby violate Art. 21. It is a case where the Central Government may be considered to have failed to understand the object and scope of S. 14(1) read with S.3(5) of the Act and of its function and duties thereunder.

23. To construe otherwise will also attract the vice of arbitrariness and unfairness which are the sworn enemies of equality guaranteed under Art. 14 of the Constitution, one procedure on representation made by the detenu to the Government and a different procedure on the report received form the State Government under S.3(5) of the Act. I may recall here the statement of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India , AIR 1978 SC 597, where it is laid down