MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition seeking for a writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed by the wife of the detenu. The order of detention under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 66 of 1980 (for short, the "act") was passed by the District Magistrate, Cuttack, on 26-4-1999 while the detenu was already in jail custody. The said order was served on the detenu on 27-4-1999 and the grounds of detention were served on 30-4-1999. The State Government approved of the order of detention by order dated 6-5-1999 and the same was forwarded to the Central Government by letter dated 13-5-1999. Representations were made by the detenu to the State Government as well as the Central Government on 13-5-1999. The State Government rejected the representation on 29-5-1999 and the Central Government rejected the representation on 22-6-1999. Such orders rejecting the representations were subsequently communicated.

( 2 ) THE order of detention has been challenged, inter alia, on the following grounds:- (i) The order dated 6-5-1999 of the State Government confirming the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate was not communicated to the Central Government within seven days; (ii) The State Government and the Central Government had not disposed of the representations within a reasonable time; (iii) The order of detention was served on the detenu while he was already in jail custody and the grounds do not disclose any reasonable basis for the Collector and District Magistrate to come to conclusion that it was necessary to pass the order of detention; (iv) In the grounds of detention, reference was made to involvement of the detenu in twentythree cases during past nine years without giving the particulars of cases and without giving any documents in support of such allegations contained in the grounds of detention.

( 3 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the counter-affidavit of opposite party No. 1 discloses that the order of approval dated 6-5-1999 was communicated to the Central Government on 15-5-1999 and as such the order was vitiated on account of non-compliance with the provisions contained in Section 3 (5) of the Act.

( 4 ) SECTION 3 (5) of the Act provides as under :-" (5) When any order is made or approved by the State Government under this section, the State Government shall, within seven days, report the fact to the Central Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in the opinion of the State Government have a bearing on the necessity for the order. "if, in fact, the order of approval by the State Government was communicated on 15-5-1999, there cannot be any doubt that there had been a violation of Section 3 (5 ). However, it appears from subsequent paragraphs in the counter-affidavit that the order was communicated on 13-5-1999. A perusal of the file produced by the Standing Counsel also indicates that the order of rejection dated 6-5-1999 was communicated on 13-5-1999. It is obvious that the reference to the date "15-5-1999" is a typographical mistake.

( 5 ) IN this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the provision in Section 3 (5) cannot be said to have been complied with merely because the order was forwarded by memo dated 13-5-1999 and it was required that the report relating to order of approval should have reached the Central Government within a period of seven days, as prescribed in Section 3 (5 ). In support of the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision reported in 1986 All LJ 1172 (Guru Charan Singh v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Bareilly ). However, in view of the decision of this Court reported in (1987) 2 Orissa LR 140 : (1988 Cri LJ 32) (Ullas Sahu v. District Magistrate, Cuttack), such contention cannot be accepted and it must be taken that the requirement of Section 3 (5) was complied with by despatching the report within seven days.