JUDGMENT
P.P. Naolekar, C.J.
1. Heard Mr. P. C. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner detenue and Mr. S. Ali, learned Addl., Advocate General, Assam for the respondent.
2. On 2.6.2003, while the detenue petitioner was in District Jail, Goalpara, the District Magistrate, Goalpara passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 detaining her until further orders. However, the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Goalpara did not specify the period for which the petitioner has been put under detention in exercise of powers under the National Security Act, 1980.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General, Assam on our repeated directions has placed before us the order passed by the Government of Assam approving the order of detention as required under Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act of 1980. The order reads as under :
“No. PLA.240/2003/32 Dated Dispur, the 16th June, 2003
ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR
The Governor of Assam after considering all the facts is pleased to approve on 10.6.2003 the detention order No. GMJ. 10/91/263 dated 2.6.2003 passed by the District Magistrate, Goalpara is detaining Shrimati Kalti Rava daughter of Shri Jiten Rava village Dhaparvita PO Borjhera P.S. Lakhipur Dist. Goalpara (Assam) under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (No. 65 of 1960) and further orders that the said detenue be detained in the District Jail Goalpara.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Assam.
Joint Secretary to the
Govt. of Assam,
Political (A) Department, Dispur.”
4. From bare perusal of the order of approval passed by the State Government, it is clear to us that no period for which the detenue shall remain under detention has been mentioned. On reading of both the orders, i.e., the order passed by the District Magistrate and the order of approval passed by the State Government it is clear that the order of detention does not specify the period for which the detenue has been put under detention in exercise of powers under the Act. In a recent decision of this court in WP (Crl) No. 27/2003 (Amrit Ballav Goswami @ Mizu Phukan v. The Union of India and Ors.), relying on the decision of the Apex Court in (1988) Suppl. SCC 568 (Commissioner of Police and Ors v. Gurbox Anandram Bhiryani) this court has held that the provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 3 is mandatory in nature and is to be complied with for legal detention. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, the detention order is to specify and direct that the detenue has been placed under detention for a specific period. In the present case the detention order dated 2.6.2003 issued by the District Magistrate, Goalpara does not specify the period of detention or order of approval passed by the State Government specify the period for which the detenue has been put under detention. As the order issued by the District Magistrate, Goalpara detaining the petitioner is not in accordance with the mandatory requirements of the Act, it cannot be permitted to stand. We need not go into the other questions raised by the learned counsel for the detenue.
5. The habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenue petitioner shall be released forthwith, if she is not required in any other matter.