The word "report" in Section 3(5) of the NSA implies that the report must be received by the Central Government within the specified time of seven days, and the mere despatch of the approval by the State Government is not sufficient.

1. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, the petitioner challenges his detention under the National Security Act, 1980 (here in after to be referred to as 'the Act' or 'NSA').

2. As per averments disclosed in the petition, the petitioner was arrested on March 21, 1987 in a proceeding under Sections 107 & 151, Cr. PC and also for violating the prohibitory order issued by the District Magistrate, Bhilwara under Section 144, Cr. PC. The City Magistrate passed an order on the same day releasing him from custody on his furnishing bail bonds. He furnished the bail bonds, but before he could be released from jail, the District Magistrate, Bhilwara issued order Annexure-15 on March 24, 1987 for the detention of the petitioner under Section 3 of the NSA. The grounds of detention were communicated to him after much delay on April 17, 1987. The petitioner made representation before the State Government, which was rejected. His case was also placed before the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board held that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. The State Government approved the order of the District Magistrate on April 1, 1987, but this approval was not reported to the Central Government within seven days. The detention was challenged on several grounds, namely, the grounds of detention were not communicated to the petitioner, no material was supplied to him in support of the grounds of detention, the grounds of detention were vague and stale having no nexus to the detention, the non-application of mind by the detaining authority and the non-compliance of the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the NSA.

3. In the return filed by the State, the grounds challenging the detention were refuted. It was alleged that the petitioner was an active communal worker who was fanning the fire of communal tension in the town of Bhilwara. His activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and as such his detention became necessary to quell the communal tension. As regards the non compliance of Section 3(5) of the Act, it was alleged that the detention order passed by the District Magistrate on 21st March, 1987 was approved by the State Government on 1st April, 1987. This approval was reported to the Central Government on March 3, 1987. The approval was despatched on April 3, 1987. The duty of the State Government under Section 3(5) of the Act was to report the approval to the Central Government. We have heard at length Mr. D.S. Shishodia learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General Mr. J.P. Joshi.

4. Though several grounds were taken in the petition to challenge the detention of the petitioner, Mr. Shishodia, during arguments confined and concentrated his contentions only to the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 3(5) of the Act.

5. It was argued by Mr. Shishodia that the detention order was passed by the District Magistrate on March 21, 1987 and it was approved under Section 3(4) of the Act on April 1, 1987. This approval was reported to the Central Government on April 3, 1987. The approval was sent by Post. The reply of the respondents does not show as to when this approval reached the Central Government. It was argued that a mere despatch of the approval is not sufficient under Section 3(5) of the Act. What is required is that the approval must be communicated to the Central Government within seven days of the date of approval. If the approval does not reach the Central Government within seven days, the detention thereafter becomes invalid. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on Sher Mohammed v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 2049 , Vinayak Ramchandra and Ors. v. D. Ramchandra etc. 1985 Cr. LJ 1257 decided by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court) and Gurucharan Singh v. Superintendent Central Jail, Bar eilli and Ors. 1986 Allahabad Law Journal 1172 , decided by a D