Judgment D.M. REGE, J.:---This petition for Haebus Corpus under Article 22(5) of the Constitution is by the wife of a detenu Dr. D. Samant detained under the National Security Act, 1980. 2. On 24th June, 1981, the detenu while on his way to Shivaji Part for addressing a rally was arrested, taken to the C.I.D. Office and there served with a detention order dated 23-6-1981 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Thane. No grounds of detention and the material on which they were based were served on the detenu then. According to the first respondents affidavit in reply letter dated 25-6-1981 by the detenus Advocate Shri Dhun Canteenwalla asking for the grounds and material was not replied to as it was not accompanied with an authority from the detenu to that effect. It seems after the service of the detention order the detenu was removed to Akola District Prison, Akola, about 400 miles away from Bombay. 3. On 25-6-1981 respondent No. 1 made a report to the State Government under section 3(4) of the National Security Act. According to respondent No. 1, however, on 28th June, 1981, the Police Officer was deputed to Akola District Prison where the detenu was detained to serve on the detenu the grounds and the material relied upon at the said prison. When the said papers were sought to be served on the detenu on 28-6-1981, the detenu by his letter of the said date to the Commissioner of Police, Thane District had pointed out that on 24-6-1981 when a detention order was served on him he had requested to hand over further correspondence to his wife and that he had no connection with his family members till then but inspite of that the police from Thane had brought copy of the grounds of detention. He, therefore, by the said letter requested the authorities to hand over all the correspondence to his wife at his Bombay address. Thereafter on the said authority from the detenu a wireless message was conveyed to Bombay and accordingly the grounds of detention along with the relevant papers were served on the detenus wife at the detenus Bombay address on 30th June, 1981 along with a covering letter of the same date. 4. On 25-6-1981 the Detaining Authority respondent No. 1 made a report to the State Government respondent No. 2 under section 3(4) of the National Security Act. 4. On 25-6-1981 the Detaining Authority respondent No. 1 made a report to the State Government respondent No. 2 under section 3(4) of the National Security Act. On 3rd July, 1981 the State Government approved the said order of detention by the Detaining Authority as required under section 3(4) of the said National Security Act. 5. In the mean time on 2-7-1981 the detenus wife filed this petition. On 3rd July, 1981, on the day on which the petition was presented to this Court, representation was addressed on behalf of the detenu to respondent No. 2 with copies there of to respondent Nos. 1 and 4. Along with this representation, a copy of the petition was also sent to be treated as representations. On 3rd July, 1981, this Court admitted the petition after hearing the parties. It seems that on 4th July, 1981, at about 4-35 p.m. a letter was addressed by the Government Pleader to the petitioners Advocate forwarding there with legible copies of certain documents already forwarded along with the grounds, as at the time of hearing of the admission of the petition a gievance was made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that many of the photo state copies supplies to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention were liable and some totally blank. 6. According to the Detaining Authority he had also despatched on 30-6-1981 by registered post a set of documents i.e. grounds and material to the detenu to Akola District Prison. However, on enquiry on 3-7-1981 it was found that the said registered packet had not reached the detenu till then. (That packet was received by the detenu on 10-7-1981). So on the same day Police Officer was sent to Akola with a fresh set of grounds of detention along with the material wherein illegible or blank photo-copies were replaced by legible one and copies of some more documents were tendered to the detenu, he refused to accept the same and requested the same to be handed over to his wife at Bombay. 7. On 7-7-1981, respondent No. 1 who was expected to consider the representation made on behalf of the detenu rejected the same and intimated about it to the detenus Advocate by a letter dated 9-7-1981. On 9-7-1981, the Chief Minister of Maharashtra also rejected the detenus representation of which the detenus Advocate was intimated by a letter dated 10-7-1981. 7. On 7-7-1981, respondent No. 1 who was expected to consider the representation made on behalf of the detenu rejected the same and intimated about it to the detenus Advocate by a letter dated 9-7-1981. On 9-7-1981, the Chief Minister of Maharashtra also rejected the detenus representation of which the detenus Advocate was intimated by a letter dated 10-7-1981. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us mainly four grounds in support of his contention that the order of detention was invalid. They are : (1) That the National Security Act was violative of the fundamental rights given to a citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. (2) Further, according to him, the detention order was invalid as many of the grounds were either non-existent or irrelevant or lacked application of mind of the Detaining Authority inasmuch as the activities enumerated had either no nexus to the detenu or to the object viz., prejudice to the maintenance of public order, or were vague. (3) The Chief Minister of Maharashtra State i.e. respondent No. 2 had violated the Constitutional and statutory right of the detenue under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India by making statement prior to the date on which the petitioner made a representation to the Government that the detenue would not be released from detention. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner said statement affected grievously the right to have his representation considered and making the said right sham. (4) Lastly, he contended that most of the documents which were supplied to the wife of the detenue were illegible and some were completely blank making it impossible for the detenue to exercise his right of making an effective representation. 9. As regards the 1st contention, challenging the validity of the Act, learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that he did not wish to challenge in this petition the vires of the Act as the said question is already pending determination by the Supreme Court. 10. The 2nd consideration was as regards the various grounds being either non-existent or irrelevant inasmuch as the activities concerned had no nexus with either the detenu or the object viz. activities being prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, or being vague. 11. 10. The 2nd consideration was as regards the various grounds being either non-existent or irrelevant inasmuch as the activities concerned had no nexus with either the detenu or the object viz. activities being prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, or being vague. 11. Under section 3 of the National Security Act under which the present detention order was made, the question as regards a particular activity of the detenue being prejudicial to the maintenance of public order was solely within the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. However, it is not that under no circumstances the courts can probe into the said subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. The extent to which the Court can do so is well laid down by the Supreme Court in its decision in the case of (Khudiram v. State of West Bengal)1, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 550. "But that does not mean that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is wholly immune from judicial reviewability. The courts have by judicial decision carved out an area, limited though it be, within which the validity of the subjective satisfaction can yet be subjected to judicial security. The basic postulates on which the courts has proceeded is that the subjective satisfaction being a condition precedent for the exercise of the power conferred on the executive the Court can always examine whether the requisite satisfaction is arrived at by the authority as required under the statute." 12. The Court further pointed out the instances where the courts can so interfere such as where there is non-application of mind in making the order or where the purpose for making the order was improper or where the satisfaction was not of Detaining Authority himself but was of some one else, or where the satisfaction was based on wrong tests or misconstruction of a statute or where the satisfaction was granted on materials which are not of rationally probative value, i.e. the grounds on which the satisfaction was based must be such as a rational human being can consider connected with the fact in respect of which the satisfaction was to be reached and must be relevant to the subject matter of the enquiry and must not be extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute. One mere ground on which the subjective satisfaction could be challenged as the Court pointed out which was lately becoming important was that the grounds on which the authority had reached its subjective satisfaction are such that any reasonable person could possibly arrive at such satisfaction. The Court, there cited with approval the observations of Lord Green M.R. in an English decision to the effect the authority has come to a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it, then the Court can interfere. 13. In the light of the position in law, as stated above, as regards the Courts power of reviewability of the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, the said contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to the validity of the detention order in reference to each of the grounds be considered. 14. Before, however, dealing with the grounds of detention in detail in that connection one minor contention of the learned Advocate General be dispensed with. 15. In this case as is apparent from the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu, the same relate to in all 18 industrial units/companies comprising in all 70 act. The scheme of the grounds shows that the activities are grouped according to the respective companies in which they are alleged to have taken place. The learned Advocate General has contended that the different activities grouped under different companies are merely instances and cannot be term as grounds so that if one of such instances were not sustainable it cannot be said that one of the grounds being bad, the order of detention was vitiated. The said contention of the learned Advocated General cannot be accepted. As I will presently point out, each of the said activity though grouped under different companies, which the learned Advocate General called instances, was in fact a ground by itself and grouped in that manner only for sake of convenience. 16. The meaning of the expression ground as distinguished from the conclusion of the Detaining Authority was also considered by the Supreme Court in the afforecited decision in Khudirams case (A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 550). 16. The meaning of the expression ground as distinguished from the conclusion of the Detaining Authority was also considered by the Supreme Court in the afforecited decision in Khudirams case (A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 550). There the Court at page 554 held : ".......It is obvious that the grounds mean all the basic facts and material which have been taken into account by the Detaining Authority in making the order of detention and on which, therefore, the order of detention is based." 17. The Court also quoted with approval observations of Sarkaria, J., in its earlier unreported decision in the case of (Golam Mullic v. State of West Bengal)2, to the effect : "......In the context grounds does not merely mean a recital or reproduction of a ground of satisfaction of the authority in the language of section 3 of the Act nor is its connotation restricted to a bare statement of conclusions of facts. It means something more. That something is factual constituent of the grounds on which the subjective satisfaction of the authority is based. The basic facts and material particulars, therefore, which are the foundation of the order of detention will also be covered by grounds." 18. In this case the scheme of the grounds of detention furnished to the detenue shows that what may be termed as a conclusion of the Detaining Authority on the facts, in terms of section 3 of the Act was to be found not only at the end of all the grounds of detention but also at end of every groups of activities enumerated against a company. 19. The conclusion of the Detaining Authority at the end of all the grounds was : "From the above narration of events that have followed, your entry into 18 industrial units in the limits of the Thane Commiserate it is abundantly clear that there is definite pattern in your tactics that disturb public order....." 20. To a similar effect if not in the same terms are the conclusions to be found at the end of groups of activities enumerated against almost each of the 18 companies/industrial units.. To a similar effect if not in the same terms are the conclusions to be found at the end of groups of activities enumerated against almost each of the 18 companies/industrial units.. If the said activities were not to be considered as ground as suggested by the learned Advocate General than bereft of the said activities what would remain in the grounds of detention would be only the conclusions, which as pointed out in the above quoted observation of the Supreme Court cannot be considered to be the basic facts and material which have to be taken into account while making the detention order. In my view, therefore, in this case each of the various activities enumerated in the grounds of detention under different companies which the learned Advocate General referred to as instances, constituted a ground of detention, though grouped under different companies in that manner only for the sake of convenience. 21. It may now be convenient to proceed to deal with the said contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to the grounds being irrelevant or showing absence of application of mind or being such, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Khudirams case, as no reasonable man could possibly arrive at such a conclusion, or being vague. 22. The said contention has been argued in two parts, firstly, it is contended that most of the grounds disclose no nexus between the detenue and the activities alleged and the object there by being prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 23. Before examining each of the grounds set out in the grounds of detention in that light, I would like to preface such examination with a few general remarks :--- 24. The detenu in this case happens to be a President of two large Labour Unions viz. Association of Engineering Workers an Maharashtra General Kamagar Union having large membership and operating not only in Bombay and Thane but also outside those areas. Although the grounds of detention in its conclusion at the end, in connection with the detenus activities speak about the detenue following a pattern of pressure tactics for recognition of his union, such pressure tactics for recognition of his union or dislodging the union, it can have no relevance in connection with Ground 8-regarding Ashok Sunil and Co. Where the company had recognised the detenues union. Ground 16-regarding K.R. Steel Co. Where the company had recognised the detenues union. Ground 16-regarding K.R. Steel Co. which relates to the holding to gage meeting and Ground 17-regarding Bayer and Co. which deals with only an incident of threatening the wife of an officer of Bayer and Company. Further, in none of the cases, an overt act on the part of the detenue has been alleged. However, six of the grounds viz. Ground 1:-re : Wellman Co. Ground 3:- re. Tecksons and Co., Ground 6 :- re. New Shakti Dye Works Ltd., Ground 9 :--- re Fouress Engineering, Ground 10 : re. Duphar inter form Ltd. and Ground 16 :--- re. K.R. Steels, speeches made by the detenue at the gate meetings at respective company have been referred to while in two other grounds viz. Ground 5 :- re. Ashok Sunil and Co. and Ground 7 :--- re, Ferrodie Ltd., letters written by the union to the management have been referred to. But excepting in the said cases of 4 companies, in none other case there is even an allegation that any of the activities referred to therein which are of the workers of the company were at the instigation of the detenue. However, the allegation of instigation in five grounds is only in the following manner :--- In Ground (1)(i) relating to Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt. Ltd. alleging violent and criminal activity by the workers, expression used is on your instructions or with your active support. In Ground (3)(iv) re :-Tekcons Pvt. Ltd. alleging threat to loyal workers by the detenus followers the expression used is obviously with your covert encouragement. In Ground (4)(i) re :---Uni Deritant Precisions Castings alleging the followers of the union damaging companys property, the expression used is obviously on your instigations. In Ground (9)(i) re :---Fouress Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. alleging that the associate of the detenue one Arvind B. Wani making a speech at your i.e. detenues instigation, and In Ground (16) re :--- K.R. Steels Pvt. Ltd. dealing with the activity of workers, uses the expression obvious advice so openly given. 25. As I deal with each of the grounds hereafter, I will deal with the propriety and the basis for the use of the said expressions. 26. 25. As I deal with each of the grounds hereafter, I will deal with the propriety and the basis for the use of the said expressions. 26. However, it is clear from the grounds that in almost all cases, the connection of the detenue to the activities is sought to be established by referring to them as the activities of workers under different expressions such as workers of your union or workers owing allegiance to you and your union, or your followers, or, your close associates or your trusted lieutenants, or the activists of your union. 27. While examining each grounds, therefore, it will have to be found out on the allegation made in the ground itself read with the documents on which the same is based (in this the document being referred to as exhibit along with each activity), whether in each any reasonably man could possibly connect the activity in question to the detenu. 28. With these preliminaries, I will now proceed to consider each ground in that connection. The first set of activities relate to Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt. Ltd. Ground (1)(i).---Its speaks of the activity of the union about the workers adopting Go Slow policy after a speech by the detenu on 4-4-1980 at the gate meeting. It was conceded by the learned Advocate General that the said activity was legitimate. Therefore, event if it were considered to be an activity of the detenue the same has no nexus to the object i.e. prejudice to maintenance of public order. Ground (1)(ii).---This refers to assault by unidentified workers suspected to be of the detenus union on one Misra threatening him no to go to work. According to the ground itself the case was classified as true but undetected. Ex. 3, the case appears on which the ground was based refers to the assailants as only the workers of the company and it does not make reference either to the union of detenue or the assailants being the members of the union. Therefore, on the basis of the said Exhibit 3 on the basis of which the ground is formulated, there was no material for the Detaining Authority to infer that the assailants were suspected to be of the detenus union much less there was any material before him to infer that the assault was with the active support of the detenu. Therefore, on the basis of the said Exhibit 3 on the basis of which the ground is formulated, there was no material for the Detaining Authority to infer that the assailants were suspected to be of the detenus union much less there was any material before him to infer that the assault was with the active support of the detenu. Even if it were true, as contended by the learned Advocate General that the detenu had claimed that all workers of the company belonged to his union and factually the workers belonging to his union were on strike still in my view since it was so alleged by the assailant in his complaint, Ex. 3, no reasonable inference could be drawn that the assault was by the workers belonging to the detenues union muchless that the assault was made with the active support of the detenu. Ground (1)(iii).---This refers to the issuing by the company a notice dated 17th May, 1980, declaring lock out on any day after 1-6-1980. This obviously has not and cannot have any connection with the activity of the detenu, but only relates to the activity of the company. Nor can it have any nexus with the object of maintenance of public order. Ground (1)(iv).---This deals with the incident of 13th June, 1980, alleging Gherao, threat and assault on one Bijmohan Ramulu Khanna, Production Officer of the company by workers alleged to be owing allegiance to the detenu and his union while on duty in the factory. Firstly, it may be pointed out that Ex. 5 being case papers of C.R. No. 198/80 on which the ground is based does not speak of any assault, and also the name of one of the workers alleged to have committed assault mentioned in the grounds as David was really Devendra. That apart, in this case also there is no allegation that the said activities were done at the instance of the detenu. Ground (1)(v).---This incident speaks of certain unidentified persons assaulting one Shantaram Indersingh Parista, Security Supervisor of the Company while on duty and threatening him not to work. The incident is sought to be connected with the detenu by alleging that this obviously appears to be the work of your followers. Case papers, Ex. Ground (1)(v).---This incident speaks of certain unidentified persons assaulting one Shantaram Indersingh Parista, Security Supervisor of the Company while on duty and threatening him not to work. The incident is sought to be connected with the detenu by alleging that this obviously appears to be the work of your followers. Case papers, Ex. 6, on which the said ground is based does not make reference to the detenus union nor do they even allege that the workers who were unidentified were the members of the detenus union or were his followers. It merely refers to the persons concerned as workers of the company on the third shift. On the material available, therefore, there was no reason to infer that the persons giving threat and/or assaulting were the followers of the detenu or their act was at the instance of the detenu. Ground (1)(vi).---This stands on the same footing as above. It alleged that certain workers owning allegiance to the detenu obstructing the Production Officer and family and going to his quarters. Exhibit 8 on which the ground is based does make no reference to the workers indulging in the said activity being workers owing allegiance to the detenue. Ground (1)(vii).---This incident of 16th August, 1980 speaks about the Production Officer being stabbed by sneaking assailants near the factory while he was going to the factory, and states that the case was registered but as the assailants could not be identified, the same was closed as true but undetected. Neither the ground nor the case papers, Ex. 9 on which the ground was based speaks about the assailants being members of the detenus union nor do they speak about the act being done at the instigation of the detenu. It is, therefore, difficult to see how this ground even on reasonable inference be connected with the detenu. Grounds (1)(viii) and (ix) relates to incidents of 2nd September, 1980 and 24th September, 1980, alleging about the workers giving slogans and defying prohibitory orders issued by the District Magistrate and workers owing allegiance to the detenu and his union threatening a loyal workers to prevent him from attending work. There is no allegation in this case also that the said acts were at the instigation of the detenu, nor there was any material to reasonably infer that they were the acts of the detenu. There is no allegation in this case also that the said acts were at the instigation of the detenu, nor there was any material to reasonably infer that they were the acts of the detenu. Grounds (1)(xi) to (x) specifically speaks about the incidents due to the instigation given by inflammatory speech of the trusted lieutenant of the detenu one Mr. Borade whose speech has been referred to in Ground 1(x). Ground (1)(x) also refer to a speech by the detenu at the gate meeting on 12-1-1981 and states that the detenu had addressed the meeting for a few members and left. The police report of the detenus speech (Ex. 14) shows the speech was innoncuous only telling the workers that Shri Borade whose speech was to follow would tell them about the meeting to be held two days thereafter. At the time the speech was delivered by Shri Borade the detenu was not present. Neither the report of the speeches (Ex. 14) nor does not ground indicate that the speech of Borade even in inflamatory was made at the instigation of the detenu. In the said ground the Detaining Authority has drawn an express inference that the activities referred to in Items (xiv) to (xv) of the workers were due to the inflamatory speech of Borade who is referred to as the detenus trusted lieutenant. It, therefore, appears that even the Detaining Authority has not sought to draw an inference that either the said activities were due to the speech or instigation of the detenu or that the speech by Borade or there at the meeting was instigated by the detenu. Apart from that in the case paper of the said activities viz. Exs. 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 on which the said grounds are based do not make any reference to the union of the detenu or as to the workers belonging to his union. AT the end of the said activities Item (xvii) alleged that from the above incidents in Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt. Ltd., it is quite clear that you have encouraged violence which has alarmed not only the loyal workers, the management staff and other workers and management in the area of Kolshet Road but also the law abiding public on the public road and those using public transport, thus posing a threat to public order. However, as I have pointed out above, there was nothing in above mentioned activities to held even by inference that the said activities were those of detenue and, therefore, the circular cannot stand. Ground (2)(i).---It relates to some unidentified persons on 6-2-1980 stoning the companys bus taking loyal workers to the station. Although the ground alleges that it was the work of workers owing allegiance to the detenus union, the ground by itself states that the case was undetected. However, the case of the complainant Ex. 23, on which the ground was based not alleged positively that the stones were thrown by union workers, but only alleges by way of a guess that the stones might have been thrown due to unions dispute dWaiuhps ;qfu;ups dkj.kko#u nxM Qsd dsfo vjklh when the Detaining Authority did not know who the persons who threw stones were, and when the complaint (Ex. 23) also does not allege any such thing it was difficult to see how the Detaining Authority could draw any inference that the persons throwing stones were workers of the union or that it was the activity of the detenu. Ground (2)(ii) and (iii) :- They relate to stopping of a companys tempo carrying food on 25-11-1980 alleged to be by workers owing allegiance to the detenu and his union and throwing out food. However, complaints Exs. 24 and 25 do not made reference to the detenus union or the accused as belonging to his union. It only refers to the accused as workers of the company. Nor does the said ground contain any allegation that the said activities have been done at the instance of the detenu. Ground (2)(iv).---It alleges that on 8-1-1981, one Ramanarayan Sarojee alleged to be a follower of the detenus union was found with a Rampuri knife by Head Constable M.S. Patil of Wagle Estate Police Station for which he was charge-sheeted under section 37(1) read with section 135, Bombay Police Act. The ground is based on the case paper Ex. 26. A look at the said papers would show that they do not describe the said Ramnarayan Sarojee as a follower of the detenus union. They do not even refer to the said Sarojee as a workers of any company. The ground is based on the case paper Ex. 26. A look at the said papers would show that they do not describe the said Ramnarayan Sarojee as a follower of the detenus union. They do not even refer to the said Sarojee as a workers of any company. Under the circumstances a reference by the Detaining Authority in the ground to the said Sarojee in the ground as the follower of the detenus union appears to be the flight of his imagination. It was pointed out by the learned Advocate General that at that time the police had promulgated in the area an order under section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that the person was found with the knife near the gate of the company. However, even if that were so, still, on the case papers Ex. 26, there could not be even a remote reference that the accused was the follower of the detenu and/or that the said activities was the activity of the detenu. The rest of the activities in ground (2) stand on the some footing as others with no allegation of the acts being instigated by the detenu. However, the said activity of workers was their individual activity when the workers of the company were on strike. In Ground (2)(vi), there is a reference to the driver being pulled out of the car. There is no reference to the same in case papers Ex. 28 on which the ground was based. Ground (3).---In this ground all the activities referred to stand on the same footing as those mentioned above. However, a particular reference be made to Item (iii) thereof. The ground alleges that on 26th May, 1981, the Security Officer being stopped and threatened with dire consequences if went to work and that in that connection, one Najekar of the detenus union being arrested. However, the said ground was not borne out by the case papers Ex. 37, on which the ground is sought to be based. Ex. 37 speaks about an incident where an employee of Central Stores was alleged to have been stopped when returning with the wife of the Security Officer and was threatened. The said ground apart from being irrelevant was also false and could not have any connection with the activity of the detenu. Ex. 37 speaks about an incident where an employee of Central Stores was alleged to have been stopped when returning with the wife of the Security Officer and was threatened. The said ground apart from being irrelevant was also false and could not have any connection with the activity of the detenu. Ground (4).---In this case the incidents relating to Uni-Deritand Precision Castings, which may be referred to are Item (i) while the others stand on the same footing as above. Ground (4)(i).---It relates to the incident dated 18th March, 1981 and 24th March, 1981 alleging that the followers of the detenus union squatting inside the factory obviously on detenus instigations damaged some expensive moulds worth Rs. 9,200/- for which two cases were registered at Kapur-Bawadi. F.I.R. Exhibit 40 on which the said incident is based shows that the complaint was against workers of the company whose names were not known. It does not make any reference to the detenus union or that the workers causing damage were the members of the said union. Further while Exhibit 40 speaks about the damage being to the extent of Rs. 18,000/- Exhibit 40-A speaks about the damage being only Rs. 1,200. However, there was nothing in the complaint to show that the damage was caused by the followers of detenus union or that it was done at the detenus instructions as alleged in the ground. Ground (4)(ii).---This incident alleges the workers on strike and the followers of the detenu having threatened to cause harm to the family of the manager of the canteen for which a case was registered on 24th April, 1981 against one Sudhakar Pawar one of the detenus followers and 3 others of the detenus union. The relevant copies of N.C. on which the ground was based is at Ex. 45. In the said complaint, it is only alleged that the complainant had taken for conducting a canteen of the company and because of that the accused had threatened the complainant that if he went to the company they would cause a harm to his children ^^eqykckykuk ikgwu ?ksbZu**. In the complaint, the accused are mentioned only by their surnames including one Pawar and there is no reference to any Sudhakar Pawar as mentioned in the ground. In the complaint, the accused are mentioned only by their surnames including one Pawar and there is no reference to any Sudhakar Pawar as mentioned in the ground. Nor does the said complaint refers to the detenus union nor to the accused even as the worker of the company, muchless, as the followers of the detenu or the members of his union. So also neither the said complainant nor the ground alleged that the threat as being given at the instance of the detenu. Further more, although the complaint referred only to a threat of causing a harm to children, the ground interprets it has "threat to murder the wife of the canteen manager". Thus the said inference by the Detaining Authority was without any material whatsoever. Ground (5).---Relates to a company called Voltas Limited. Ground 5(i).---It relates to an incident of 18th March, 1981 where it is alleges that one V.J. Naik of the detenus union had abused and assaulted the canteen manager and the Security Officer who intervened for which complaint was lodged being N.C. complaint Ex. 48 is the material on which the said ground was based. However, the said N.C. complaint gives altogether a different picture of the incident. Firstly although the ground alleges abuses and assault, the complaint only speaks about arguments and pushing ^^cksykpkyh /kDdkcqDdh**. Further, the complaint discloses that the actual incident was that when the canteen manager had gone to check the canteen, he had seen the accused workers taking 2/3 tomatoes and, therefore, the canteen manager had asked him to take the tomatoes after seeing the persons sitting there viz. the Security Officer, where upon some arguments had taken place between the accused and the complainant when the complainant had asked from the accused the canteen pass. Accused had threatened the complainant that he would drive the complainant out of the company. Apart from the fact that the said episode being flimsy and there being no allegation about the same having taken place at the instance of the detenu. One fails to understand how the said incident can by any stretch of imagination be considered to be an activity of the detenu. Ground (5)(ii).---This incident first alleges about speech by the detenu at the gate meeting held on 13-4-1981 wherein the detenu asked for one union in the factory and not two. One fails to understand how the said incident can by any stretch of imagination be considered to be an activity of the detenu. Ground (5)(ii).---This incident first alleges about speech by the detenu at the gate meeting held on 13-4-1981 wherein the detenu asked for one union in the factory and not two. This activity of the detenu has no relevance to the activity concerned under the National Security Act. Then the ground does not allege anything having happened as a result of the said speech. The second part of the said ground alleges displaying certain playcards by the followers of the detenu against one of the T.C. Department of the company and also against the Deputy Superintendent of the Assembly Department. The said playcards do not from part of the material supplied to the detenu. It is, however, nowhere alleged in the ground that the same was done at the instance of instigation of the detenu, so as to be an activity of the detenu. Ground (5)(iii) and (iv).---These incidents dated 25th May, 1981 allege abuses and threats by the followers of the detenu to the incharge of the department when he had gone to inspect the same. Although the ground refers to the accused as detenus followers actually N.C. complaints extracts (Exs. 50 and 51) on which the ground is abused, refers to them as the workers of the union viz. Association of Engineering Workers. However, neither the ground nor the extracts of the N.C. complaints allege the incident which appears to have taken place at the spur of the moment as having been done at the instigation of the detenu so as to infer that they were the activities of the detenu. Ground (6).---Regarding New Shakti Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. Ground (6)(i).---It refers to a speech by the detenu wherein the detenu is alleged to have told the workers that they did not get justice from going to the courts and hence they should strike work or abuse the management after entering their cabins. It also speaks about 60 workers going on strike on 5-4-1980. Actually the report of the speech (Ex. 53) on which the said ground is based shows that the detenu had shown his regards for the workers not having strength to enter the cabins of the management and abuse then if justice was not done to them. It also speaks about 60 workers going on strike on 5-4-1980. Actually the report of the speech (Ex. 53) on which the said ground is based shows that the detenu had shown his regards for the workers not having strength to enter the cabins of the management and abuse then if justice was not done to them. But that apart there is no allegation of any unlawful activity of the nature coming under the National Security Act as a result of the said speech and, therefore, the said activity though of the detenu has no relevance. Ground (6)(ii).---Refers only to the speech of one Mungekar alleged to be main lieutenant of the detenu. There is no allegation that the detenu was present at the meeting or that it was made at his instigation. The said act of Mungekar, therefore, cannot be connected to the detenu. Ground (7).---Regarding a company Ferredie Ltd. It refers to 2 instances, one dated 13-4-1981 obstructing a companys lorry with goods going out of the company by the detenus followers and the 2nd obstructing and threatening Security Officer on contract by workers of the detenus union. Case papers Ex. 56 and 58 on which the said grounds are based refers to the accused as workers of the company and makes no reference to the union of the detenu. Apart from that none of the grounds allege the acts being done at the instigation of the detenu. These grounds, therefore, fall in the same category as many of the grounds mentioned above. However, on these two grounds and the go slow tactics adopted by the workers of the company, the Detaining Authority has concluded : "The above facts clearly show that you do not brook any opposition from management to your illegal demand and you even demanded cancellation of agreement entered into with the management recognised union without any respect for the labour laws and industrial relations. If annoyed by legal stands taken by the management, you resort to intimidatory tactics which disturb public order". To say the least, the ground does not even speak about the cancellation of the agreement with the management recognised union. That apart, on the incidents mentioned in the ground the said conclusion appears to be in founded. Ground (8).---Regarding Ashok Sunil Co. To say the least, the ground does not even speak about the cancellation of the agreement with the management recognised union. That apart, on the incidents mentioned in the ground the said conclusion appears to be in founded. Ground (8).---Regarding Ashok Sunil Co. In this case admittedly the detenus union has been recognised by the company and, therefore, no question of the detenu following a pattern of pressure tactics to have his union recognised or dislodging the rival union would arise atleast in this company. Ground (8)(i).---The only incident in this company that is alleged is about the workers alleged to be the followers of the detenu intimating the management by resorting to Gherao on 6-5-1981. Here again as in other cases the workers of the company on sit-in strike and on either to the union or to the accused being members of the union so also neither the ground nor the complaint Ex. 63 alleges that the same was at the instigation of the detenu. Ground (9) Regarding Fouress Engineering (India) Private Ltd. Ground (9)(i).---Alleges about the detenu having organised a public meeting at the gate of company on 19-12-1980 which was alleged to be soon after he having formed union in February 1980 where at the instigation of the detenu one Wani is alleged to have made a provocative speech and used abusive language against the police and the management for which a complaint was made. The case papers (Ex. 66) on which the said ground is based, however, do not support the said allegation. Firstly, admittedly, at the said meeting the detenu was not present. Secondly, the said meeting was not an ordinary union meeting but it was a condolence meeting held by the workers of the union to mourn the death of the union worker one Padvalkar, who the workers alleged to have been killed by one Sadanand Shetty. Further, the complaint speaks about the speakers having strongly criticised ^^dMd fVdk** the police and the management for their inaction in the matter and having made fiery speech and demanded the arrest of the said Sheety and if not threatened to close down the companies in the area. The complainant does not speak about the speakers having used abuses against the police and management. There is no basis in the complaint to allege that it was done at the detenus instigation as alleged in the ground. The complainant does not speak about the speakers having used abuses against the police and management. There is no basis in the complaint to allege that it was done at the detenus instigation as alleged in the ground. Ground (9)(ii).---This speaks about seven workers of the detenus union uttering on 20-1-1981 filthy and abusive slogans against the management as set out therein. The case papers of the incident Ex. 67, on which the said ground was based tell a different story. The said papers show that at that time over 580 workers were shouting for their demands out of which 5 or 7 workers are supposed to have uttered the said slogans. It further appears that when a complaint (Ex. 67) was made to the police on 20th January, 1981, the persons named in the complaint as uttering said slogans were five in number. However, in the charge-sheet for the same the said number appears to have risen to eleven. On the ground as formulated and the complaint on which it is based there is nothing to show that the said workers were shouting the said slogans at the instigation of the detenu so as to connect the said activity with the detenu. Ground (9)(iii).---It alleges that on 24-11-1980 one Ghagat belonging to detenus union had given fist blows to one Kale a worker belonging to another union. However, N.C. complaint extracts Ex. 68 on which the said ground is based refers to both the complainant and the accused as the worker of the company and makes no reference to the either of them belonging to any union. It only speaks about giving fist blows by one to the other after arguments. The incident as narrated in complaint Ex. 68 appears to have occurred at the spur of the moment in heat of arguments. Apart from the fact that there is no allegation as to the same being at the instigation of the detenu it is difficult to see even otherwise how such an act could be connected to the detenu as his act. Ground (9)(iv).---In this ground it is alleged that one Patil of detenus union had intimated one Nayakar who had refused to become a member of the union and was beaten up with fists. N.C. extract Ex. 69 on which the ground is based does not speak of any refusal to become the member of the union. Ground (9)(iv).---In this ground it is alleged that one Patil of detenus union had intimated one Nayakar who had refused to become a member of the union and was beaten up with fists. N.C. extract Ex. 69 on which the ground is based does not speak of any refusal to become the member of the union. It only says that accused of the detenus union gave fist blows to the complainant of the other union Madoor Congress because of the argument in union matter. This act between the members of the rival unions had taken place in the course of the arguments and cannot be connected by any stretch with the detenu. Ground (9)(v).---In this ground it is alleged that on 24-11-1980, one Shri Ramesh B. Kulkarni and Shri R.D. Gaikar belonging to the detenus union had intimidated one Shri T.T. Gupta and beat him with first for which an offence was registered. Firstly, the N.C. extract (Ex. 70) on which the said ground is based shows that the said incident had occurred on 28-10-1980 and not on 24-10-1980, as alleged in the ground. Secondly, the person concerned was one Ramesh B. Kurve and not Kulkarni as stated in the ground. Further, according to the said extract what appears to have actually alleged was that both the accused and the complainant were workers in the company, that the accused wanted to break the Mazdoor Congress of which the complainant was a member, that the accused had asked the complainant to give in writing that he was not a member of the Mazdoor Congress and as the complainant refused, the accused getting angry had given fist blows to the complainant. The said ground based on the complaint Ex. 70 does not bring out the incident clearly. This incident as others in respect of the company appears to have happened in a fit of anger on the spur of the moment. Apart from the fact that there was no allegation about the same acts being done at the instigation of the detenu, even otherwise the said acts cannot be held out as the activities of the detenu. At the end of the said ground, a conclusion is sought to be drawn that the detenu has actively started his organisation and become a potential threat to the maintenance of public order by resorting to strong arm tactics for gaining recognition to detenus union. At the end of the said ground, a conclusion is sought to be drawn that the detenu has actively started his organisation and become a potential threat to the maintenance of public order by resorting to strong arm tactics for gaining recognition to detenus union. From none of these instances an inference was possible to be drawn leading to the said conclusion. instances in ground (10) regarding Duphar Interfan Ltd. alleging that workers of the company belonging to the detenus union had obstructed and threatened companys officers from going in bereft of any allegation of instigation by the detenu for doing the said acts stand on the same footing as various other similar acts in other companies referred to above. Ground (11) Regarding United Wire Rope Co. Ground (11)(i).---In this ground it is alleged that on 24th December, 1980 at 4-20 p.m. one Madhukar S. Bondate belonging to the detenus union had assaulted one V.N. Matkar with a saw blade for which an offence was registered. The incident as stated gives an impression that the incident had something to do with the detenus union actively and the person assaulted belonged to another union. However, the relevant case papers Ex. 76, firstly, show that the name of the assailant was Madhukar Kondate and not Madhukar Bondare as mentioned in the ground. The case papers further expressly state that both Madhukar Kondade and V.N. Matkar the victims in fact belonged to the same union as that of the detenu. They also show that the said Kondade had assaulted the said Matkar while under influence of liquor. The said incident even by any stretch could not be considered to be an activity of detenu. Ground (11)(ii).---This also stands on the same footing as the above incident. Here the allegation is as regards some workers threatening and assailing another worker. As the case appears Ex. 77 on which the ground is based show the said incident also is between the workers who were the members of the same union and the reason for it was a quarrel over one member working over time. This again has nothing to do with the activity of the detenu. As the case appears Ex. 77 on which the ground is based show the said incident also is between the workers who were the members of the same union and the reason for it was a quarrel over one member working over time. This again has nothing to do with the activity of the detenu. Ground (11)(iii).---This ground alleges an incident dated 23-12-1980 where at Shri Khade, Shri Kawlekar (really ought to be Kudalkar), Shri Palkar and Shri Surve are alleged to have stopped the car of the accountant who was coming out from the factory, pulled him out and assaulted him. Complaint Ex. 78 on which the ground is based, refers to the said workers having hit the said accountant on the head while in the car but does not speak about being pulled out from the car assaulted as alleged in the ground. This incident so also incident (iv) does not even refer to the assailant as the workers of the detenus union. Apart from this ground as well as ground (11)(iv) bereft of any allegation of instigation by the detenu stand on the same footing as various other similar grounds referred to above. The three incidents which relates to stopping companys vehicle, pelting stones and giving threat at a gate meeting in Ground (12) regarding Golden Dye. Corporation being Ground 12(i)(ii) and (iii) although alleging that the workers involved were detenus followers or belonged to his union, do not allege that they were at the instigation of the detenu. Ground (12)(iv).---This ground relates to an incident of 9th May, 1981 where it is alleged that one Naronha of M/s. Francis Kleins Pvt. Ltd. who wanted to see the management of the company was obstructed by the detenus man while entering the factory and after he had come out he was assaulted and robbed of his brief case which was ultimately burnt. The case was, however, classified as true but undetected. If it is not known even to the Detaining Authority as to who the person concerned were, and if the complaint only refers the person as workers, it is difficult to see how the Detaining Authority could infer that it was the activity of the detenus men and hence of the detenu. If it is not known even to the Detaining Authority as to who the person concerned were, and if the complaint only refers the person as workers, it is difficult to see how the Detaining Authority could infer that it was the activity of the detenus men and hence of the detenu. Ground (13) Re.---Surendra Industries Pvt. Ltd. In the beginning of the said ground, it is alleged that at the gate meeting organised on 7-4-1980 by the detenus followers for seeking recognition to his union, detenus followers Shri Bihari, Shri Yadav, Shri Bagul and Shri Ratan had assaulted a loyal worker Shri Jadhav, a Security officer with fist blows. However, the N.C. complaint extract Ed. 80 on which the ground was based showed that the incident was not at the meeting and had nothing to do with the object of the meeting. From the said Exd. 89, it appears that various outside workers were invited to attend the said meeting. It was then alleged by some workers of the union that one of the gates leading to the place of the meeting was closed which was denied by the said Jadhav and to show that the gate was open the said Jadhav had taken the said workers in his car to the gate showed that the gate was not closed. It was at that time away from the place of the meeting some altercation had taken place where at the said workers are alleged to have assaulted the said Jadhav. As the said N.C. complaint extract (Ex. 85) shows that the assault was on the heat of the moment and had even nothing to do with the object of the meeting as such as it is sought to be brought out in the also not alleged that the incident was at the instigation of the detenu. The said incident, therefore, can have no connection with the detenu. Ground (13)(i).---It alleges a holding of an unlawful assembly on 8-5-1980 by workers belonging to detenus union with a view to assault certain temporary workers of which a complaint was lodged being C.R. No. 112/80. However, case papers (Ex. 90) on which the ground is based do not make any reference to any such allegation. Ground (13)(i).---It alleges a holding of an unlawful assembly on 8-5-1980 by workers belonging to detenus union with a view to assault certain temporary workers of which a complaint was lodged being C.R. No. 112/80. However, case papers (Ex. 90) on which the ground is based do not make any reference to any such allegation. They show that the police had gone to the scene on getting information that some of the dismissed workers of the company had collected at the gate of the company with sticks, iron bars etc. and that on seeing the police had run away. The papers do not even refer to any purpose of the meeting as stated in the ground, which appears to be imagination of the Detaining Authority. In this case also there is no allegation as to the same being done at the instigation of the detenu so that the same may amount to his activity. Ground (13)(ii).---Alleges an assault by some workers belonging to the detenus union on an associate of one Namdeo Laxman Solaskar a loyal worker on 20-5-1980. It is based on case papers Ex. 91. From the said case papers, it is clear that quarrels ensued because of the workers of the detenus union having asked other workers of the company belonging to Shiv Sena as to why he had joined Shiv Sena union as result of which the workers of the detenus union were alleged to have assaulted the other worker. Here against as in various other cases there is no allegation of the act having been done at the instigation of the detenu. The quarrel appears to be between individual workers of the company belonging to different unions and the same cannot be held out as an activity of the detenu. At the end of this ground No. (13) also, there is a conclusion drawn viz. as a result of these intimadatory and violent activates organised and guided by you, the management had to suspend work in the factory which resumed its production in December 1980. Basis on which this conclusion appears to have been drawn in Ex. 93. However, the said Ex. 93 has nothing to do with the violent or intimidatory activities supposed to have been organised or guided by the detenu. Basis on which this conclusion appears to have been drawn in Ex. 93. However, the said Ex. 93 has nothing to do with the violent or intimidatory activities supposed to have been organised or guided by the detenu. It is a notice issued by the Personal Manager, one Gadkari for Surendra Industries dated 27th June, 1980 informing the workers as regards resumption of the companies activities as a result of several meetings with the detenu as the President of the Association of Engineering Workers and it asked the workers to start cleaning start cleaning factory premises and the place of their work till the actual operation started. It is difficult to see how from the said document an inference ever be drawn that the company had to suspend work as a result of any intimidatory or violent activities organised or guided by the detenu. Ground (14).---Reading W.G. Forge and Allied Industries. It initially deals with certain speeches made by two workers R.J. Singh and R.N. Singh who are alleged to have threatened one Laud, the Operational Manager of the company that his leg would be cut off if he became strict in declaring lock out. It also speaks about lock out being declared by the company on 20-6-1980. Neither the ground nor the complaint Exhibit 94 on which the said ground is based alleged the said speeches being made at the instigation of the detenu. Nor does the ground or the complaint Exhibit 94 speak about the said speeches being in any way connected with the detenu, so as to the said speech being held as the activity of the detenu. Ground (14)(i) (ii).---Speak about incidents of 21st October, 1980 and 10th July, 1980 where in the first case some workers belonging to the detenus union are alleged to have obstructed the Security Officer from leaving the factory premises, while in the other workers belonging to detenus union after holding a gate meeting are alleged to have taken out a procession to the residence of Operational Manager Laud. The report of the gate meeting Exhibit 97 shows that both gate meeting and the procession were peaceful. Here again as in the other cases, there is no allegation as to instigation from the detenu for the said activities. That apart, in Item (ii) there was no incident at all but on the contrary, the meting and the procession were peaceful. Here again as in the other cases, there is no allegation as to instigation from the detenu for the said activities. That apart, in Item (ii) there was no incident at all but on the contrary, the meting and the procession were peaceful. It is, therefore, difficult to see how these activities even by inference can be said to be the activities of the detenu. Ground (14)(iii).---This incident relating to assault with first blows and a chair on the Personal Manager of the company bereft of any allegations of instigation by the detenu stand on the same footing, as the other similar instances mentioned above. Ground (15).---Regarding Chemi Quip Ltd. Ground (15)(i).---The first incident relates to the gate meting held by one Mangekar, alleged to be the detenus lieutenant, on 17-12-1980 and soon thereafter on 7th January, 1981 one worker of the Mazdoor Congress of Dina Bama Patil is alleged to have been assaulted by three workers alleged to be follows of the detenus union, with a tiffin box. The extract of the complaint Exhibit 100 on which the ground is based gives a different picture. What appears to have happened was, that the workers of the company belonging to the detenus union were demanding money from the other workers for the benefit of workers employed outside the company. Accordingly, they had demanded money from the workers who were the members of the other union who said that they would think about it after asking their leaders outside. The complaint states that because of that the said workers of the detenus union had not angry and assaulted the other with tiffin boxes and fists. This incident of assault also appears to have taken place between the workers in the heat of anger and can by no stretch be attributed to the detenu as his activity, nor there is as in the other cases any allegation of instigation by the detenu. Ground (15)(ii).---Under this incident it is alleged that on 8-1-1981 i.e. a day next after the first incident, one Ramakant Digambarnath Chuge was beaten with fists by Ramesh Kadam and 3 others alleged to be followers of detenus union in order to force him to join detenus union. Ground (15)(ii).---Under this incident it is alleged that on 8-1-1981 i.e. a day next after the first incident, one Ramakant Digambarnath Chuge was beaten with fists by Ramesh Kadam and 3 others alleged to be followers of detenus union in order to force him to join detenus union. N.C. complaint extract on which the ground is bases is Exhibit 101 and 101-A. The complaint states only that the detenu wanted to have his union in the company while there was an union of Dina Bama Patil of which he was a general leader and on that ground the said assaulted had taken place. The complaint does not speak about the assault was made in order to force the complainant to joint the union as made out in the ground. Otherwise also the said incident stands on the same footing as the other similar instances of assault dealt with above. Ground (15)(iii).---This relates to an incident of 24th March, 1981 when a loyal worker of the company is alleged to have been assaulted and stabbed by one Ramesh Balu Kadam and 8 others all followers of the detenus union. However, the reason for the assault, as given in case papers Exhibit 102, on which the ground was based was that the assault had taken place as a result of the argument between them about the complainant and his followed workers not having attended a meeting of the detenus union held on 24-3-1981. Ground does not bring out the said reason for the assault. Otherwise also the said incident stands on the same footing as the other various instances mentioned above where there was no allegation of instigation by the detenu. Ground (16).---Regarding K.R. Steel Pvt. Ltd. The ground initially speaks about a speech by the detenu at the gate meeting held really on 27-4-1981, wrongly stated in the ground as 24-3-1981. No over Act is alleged as a result of the said speech. It is further alleged that "following your obvious advice so open, given on 12-5-1981 the workers of the company deflated the tyres of the car of the tyres of the car of the Commercial Manager, entered the office of Personal Manager and manhandled him". However, there is no complaint lodged by any one in respect of the said allegation on which the said ground could have been based. However, there is no complaint lodged by any one in respect of the said allegation on which the said ground could have been based. Exhibit 105 on which the said ground based is a report by the police about the police arrangements at the company and about the decision to start the company after talks between the management and the detenu. This ground has nothing to do with the detenus activity. Ground (17).---Here the allegation was about the detenus followers terrorising women folks to bring pressure on their husbands not to go to work. The ground alleges an incident of 8th June, 1981 where 1/15 workers of Bayer India Company controller by detenus union, had gone to the residence of one Bauskar, Administrative Manager of Bayer India Ltd. at Dombivali in his absence and met his wife and threatened her that they would murder Shri Bauskar and dispose of his body in such a way that she would not be able to set her eyes on it, which had a terirrible effect on her. In this case, the persons who held out the said threat were not identified. F.I.R. Exhibit 106 as regards the said incident shows that Mrs. Bauskar had expressed her willingness to identify them if shown. Even today the said papers are not identified. Since the said persons were not identified, it could not be said that they were members of the detenus union, or that the said Act was done at the instance of the detenu. Ground (18) Re.---National Rayon Corporation. It relates to clash between the workers of two rival unions viz. of the detenu and of one Dhulap and there was stone throwing which had caused panic. The F.I.R. Exhibit 107 on which the ground is based does not show who were at default. The F.I.R. does not state who the arrested person were. The said Act, therefore, cannot be connected with the detenu. 29. I have tried to deal with almost all the Acts under 18 companies/industrial units, just to show how very many of the said grounds can not even by remote inference be connected to the detenu. 30. The F.I.R. does not state who the arrested person were. The said Act, therefore, cannot be connected with the detenu. 29. I have tried to deal with almost all the Acts under 18 companies/industrial units, just to show how very many of the said grounds can not even by remote inference be connected to the detenu. 30. I gave gone through the various grounds of detention some what in detail to show how in very many case the Detaining Authority has failed to apply his mind to the question whether the activities enumerated therein could be considered to be the activities of the detenu. Reading the said grounds, as a whole, it gives an impression that what the Detaining Authority has done was to collect, as if mechanically various acts of assaults, intimidation etc. that had occurred during a particular period in proximity to the detention order, in various companies in the area, in which either the detenu as a labour leader was seeking to establish his union or where the workers or workers of the detenus union were involved as accused under the complaints filed and after alleging that the said acts were the acts of the members of the detenus union or his followers or his lieutenants or of those owings allegiance to him and his union incorporate the same as grounds of detention, on the basis that they were the activities of the detenu without even alleging in most cases that they were at the instigation of the detenu or caring to examine whether they or any of them with a reasonable inference could be said to have any nexus with the detenu. 31. As I have pointed out at the out set, the detenu was a labour leader being the President of two large union having large membership with their activities not only in Bombay, but at several places outside such as Thane, Belapur, Pune and Aurangabad. Therefore, it would be a dangerous proposition to hold that any act done by a worker who was a member of detenus union at any time, at any place and under any circumstances, was to be the act of detenu. Therefore, it would be a dangerous proposition to hold that any act done by a worker who was a member of detenus union at any time, at any place and under any circumstances, was to be the act of detenu. Even to draw a reasonable inference to that effect atleast there must be some material of rationally probative value before the authority to do so and not a mere fact that the workers responsible for the same were the detenus followers or the members of the detenus union or owing allegiance to him or to his union. 32. I have pointed out above while discussing each and every ground that apart from various other things, some of the acts alleged are so frivolous that even by remote inference, they cannot be connected with the detenu. Act such as notice of lock out by a company (ground (1)(iii), a man being found wtih Rampuri knife near the gate of the company; ground (2)(iv) or a quarrel over tomatores; ground (5)(i), quarrels between the members if the same union; ground (11)(i) and (ii) or cases in which even according to the Detaining Authority the assailants were undetected; ground (1)(ii), (v) vii; ground (2)(i) and ground (17) or case where the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment in the heat of arguments or anger; ground (9)(v); ground (13)(i) or (13)(ii), (15)(i) and (ii) or (16)). 33. The further contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that various grounds in the grounds of detention have no nexus to the object of the detention viz. the maintenance of the public order. 34. In nature of the expression 'public order' as distinguished from law and order has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in various decisions. A few of such decisions may be referred to. First one is in the case of (Ram Manohar Lohia v. The State of Bihar)3, 1966 A.I.R. S.C. 740. There the Court at page 768 laid down : "The contravention of law always affects order, but before it can be said to disturb public order it must affect community or public at large. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Defence of India Act but disturbance which subert the public order are". (Underlining supplied). A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Defence of India Act but disturbance which subert the public order are". (Underlining supplied). Hidayatullah, J. who propounded a theory of concentric circles observed at page 758 of the report: "One has to imagine three concentric circles. Law and order represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest circle represents the security of the State. It is then easy to see that an act may affect law and order but not public order just as an act may affect public order but not security of the State". 35. In a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case (Arun Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal)4, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1228 Hidayatullah, C.J., who delivered the judgment of the Court, again reiterated three concentric circles formula stated above. In that case the Court was concerned with the question whether an incident between the two individuals could be considered to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Court there at page 1230 of the report observed :--- "It means, therefore, that the question whether a man has only committed a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause a disturbance of the public order is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the act upon the society. The French distinguish law and order and public order by designating the letter as under public. The latter expression has been recognised as meaning somethings more than ordinary maintenance of law and order. Justice Ramswamy in (Writ Petition No. 179 of 1968 (S.C.))5, drew a line of demarcation between the serious and aggravated forms of breaches of public order which affect the community or endanger the public interest at large from minor breaches of peace which do not affect the public at large. He drew an analogy between the public and the private crimes. The analyse is useful but not to be pushed too far. A large number of Acts directed against persons or individuals may total up into a breach of public order. In Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia's case 1966 S.C.R. 709 : A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 740 examples were given by Sarkar and Hidayatullah JJ. The analyse is useful but not to be pushed too far. A large number of Acts directed against persons or individuals may total up into a breach of public order. In Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia's case 1966 S.C.R. 709 : A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 740 examples were given by Sarkar and Hidayatullah JJ. They show how similar acts in different context affect differently law and order on the one hand and public order on the other. It is always a question of degree of the harm and its affect upon the community. The question to ask is : does it lead to disturbance of current of life of the community so as to amount to disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquillity of the society undisturbed? This question has to be faced in every case on facts. There is no formula by which one case can be distinguished from another. The next decision that may be conveniently referred to is in the case of (Ram Ranjan Chaterjee v. The State of West Bengal)6, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 609. There the Court held : "It may be remembered that qualitively, the act which affect law and order are not different from the acts which affect public order. Indeed a State of peace or orderly tranquilly which prevails as a result of the observance or enforcement of internal laws and regulations by the Government is a feature common to the concepts of law and public order. The distinction between the area of law and order and public order is one of degree and extent of the reach of act in question to the society. It is the potentiality of the Act to disturb the even tempo of the life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. If the contravention in its effect is confined only to a few individuals directly involved as distinguished from a wide spectrum of the public, it would raise a problem of law and order only. These consecrate concepts of law and order and public order may have a common epicentre, but it is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular eruption of disorder that helps to distinguish it as an act affect in public order from that concerning law and order". These consecrate concepts of law and order and public order may have a common epicentre, but it is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular eruption of disorder that helps to distinguish it as an act affect in public order from that concerning law and order". (Underlining supplied) To the same effect are the observations of the Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Ram Ranjan Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 609. 36. On these basis of the aforesaid decision, it would now be convenient to consider whether grounds referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner could be considered such as to prejudice to the maintenance of public order. 37. As I have pointed out earlier in my judgment the Detaining Authority has set out his conclusions as to the Acts enumerated in the grounds of detention being such as to affect maintenance of public order, not only at the end of all the grounds, but also at the end of instances pertaining to each company. I have also pointed out that every instance as regards such company in almost all cases the instances start by stating about detenu's taking steps to have his union recognised by asking the workers to adopt go slow policy and/or resorting to strike by giving a notice. The Detaining Authority in his affidavit in reply has stated that the said reference to go slow policy or resorting to strike were not the basis of the order of detention but were referred to incidentally to show that the prejudicial acts were either proceeded or followed by the activities of the detenu's union. 38. On the reading of the grounds of detention, the reference to go slow policy or resorting to strike at the beginning of the enumeration of activities in connection with each company does not appear to be only incidental to the order or not the basis of the order of detention as contended in the affidavit. The said activity or adoption of go slow or resorting to strike appears to have been referred to amongst others as part of the so called pattern of presurprising tactics alleged to have been adopted by the detenu for recognition of the union or dislodging the rival union as stated in the conclusion at the end of the ground of detention. In my view, therefore, the allegation as to the adoption of go slow policy or resorting to strike are as such a part of the grounds as the other instance. 39. As regards the said grounds of go slow policy or resorting to strike, the learned Advocate General has fairly stated that those were the legitimate activities of the union. In that case the said grounds given at the beginning of the activities relating to every company excepting in grounds (8), (16) and (17) can have no nexus to the object of the detention order. 40. Apart from that, certain other grounds referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in that connection be considered. Ground (1)(iii).---It relates to a notice dated 17-8-1980 issued by the Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt. Ltd. notifying their intention to declare a lock out of their company from any day after 1-6-1980. Admittedly, this was not an activity of the company. It is also difficult to see what this ground can have to do with public order. Ground (1)(viii).---This ground and/or the incident covered by this ground relates to slogan shouting by the workers of the company at the gate of the factory of Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt. Ltd. after defying the prohibitory orders issued by the District Magistrate. Ground (2)(iv).---This incident relates to one Ramnarayan Sarojee being found carrying a Rampuri knife near the gate of the company being Rubber Products Ltd. It is stated that at that time the police had promulgated order under Rule 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ground (5)(i).---As stated above, the ground read with Exhibit 48 on which it is based shows that the incident relates to some altercation between the worker and the canteen supervisor in connection with the taking of tomatoes. Although the ground alleges abuses and assaults, the complaint on which it is based speaks only about arguments. The said incident can have no connection with the maintenance of public order. Ground (5)(ii) and (iii).---They relate to abuse and threat by worker to one of the officers and exhibiting of playards which are not given to the detenu nor produced. Ground (6)(i).---It relates to speech alleged to have been delivered by the detenu on 4th April, 1980, stating that the workers did not get justice from the courts and that they were not strong to abuse the management by entering their cabins. Ground (6)(i).---It relates to speech alleged to have been delivered by the detenu on 4th April, 1980, stating that the workers did not get justice from the courts and that they were not strong to abuse the management by entering their cabins. Ground (7)(i).---This incident deals with obstructing of a lorry carrying finished goods by the followers of the detenu and threatening the driver of the said lorry. Ground (8)(i).---It relates to intimidation by the workers of the management of the company by gheraoing them. Ground (9).---It relates to a speech delivered on 19-12-81 by persons other than the detenu at a condolence meeting held to mourn the death of a worker who was a member of the detenu's union. The report of the speech Exhibit 66 speaks about the police and management being criticised for not taking steps against the culprit one Sadanand Shetty. Apart from the fact that the detenu was not present, no incident as a result of the speech is alleged. Ground (9)(ii).---It relates to 7 out of 500 workers who were shouting for their demands using abusive slogans, as is evidence from the case papers. (Exhibits 67 and 67-A). Ground (10)(i), (ii) and (iii).---Incidents relate only to the obstruction by some workers on street of the Personal Manager or Quality Control Manager or the Labour Officer for going into the premises. No violent incident is alleged. Ground (11)(i) and (ii).---These incidents relate to the dispute between some workers belonging to the same union i.e. the detenu's union. Ground (13) (first part) and (ii) and ground 15(ii):---They relate to the incident between workers that appear to have taken place in the heat of arguments or anger. Ground (16).---The only incident alleged is deflation of tyres of the car of the Commercial Manager by workers of the company who were on strike without any one having explained about it. None of the above quoted grounds can have any relevance to the object of maintenance of public order. 41. There are various of the Supreme Court which go to show that even if one of the grounds or reason that led to the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was irrelevant, the order of detention was invalid. See (Pushkar Mukherjee and others. v. The State of West Bengal)7, 1969(1) S.C.C. 10 . (Sushanhta Goswami and others v. The State of West Bengal)8, A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1004. See (Pushkar Mukherjee and others. v. The State of West Bengal)7, 1969(1) S.C.C. 10 . (Sushanhta Goswami and others v. The State of West Bengal)8, A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1004. (Ram Raul v. State of West Bengal)9, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 863. (Bhupal Chandra v. Asif Alotors)10, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 255. (Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar v. State of M.P.)11, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 870. 42. However, the learned Advocate General has contended that if the activities enumerated in the grounds constituted a chain of activities of the detenu, the totality of which would lead to an apprehension of the same being prejudicial to public order, then in that case even if one ground was bad, on that count the detention order should not be held to be invalid or vitiated. 43. In support of the said proposition, the learned Advocate General has relied upon certain decisions of the Supreme Court and an unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court which may be first referred to. 44. The argument is based on certain observations of Hidayatullah, J. in his judgment in the case of Arun Ghosh v. State of W.B., A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1228 (which I have referred to above) where the Court held that acts complained of were restricted against the ladies of a particular family, and affected individuals and not the society at large and, therefore, cannot be said to be prejudicial to public order. In that case, after dealing with the nature of public order as distinguished from law and order Hidayatullah, C.J., while dealing only with the analogy in that connection drawn by Ramaswamy, J., in the Court's earlier decision as being public crime and private crime, had observed :--- "The said analogy was useful but not to be pushed too far, it large number of Acts directed against persons or individuals may total up into a breach of public order". 45. It may be mentioned that the said observations on which reliance is placed by the learned Advocate General in support of this proposition were only in connection with the analogy drawn by Ramaswamy, J., to distinguish public order from law and order and cannot be taken to negative the proposition laid down in other decision that on irrelevant ground would vitiate the order of detention. 46. The next decision of the Supreme Court relied upon was in the case of (Dr. 46. The next decision of the Supreme Court relied upon was in the case of (Dr. Ramkrishna Rawal v. District Magistrate Jabalpur and another)12, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 90. There in the grounds of detention a chain of events on which an earlier detention order was passed but later on revoked was narrated as a background. It was contended that grounds (2), (3), (4) and (5) being the same, on the basis of which the earlier detention order was passed the subsequent detention order was illegal, what the Court held was that those grounds were stated merely as a narration and were not the grounds on which the fresh detention order was passed. It was then urged that para 10 of the schedule to the grounds referring only to the organisation of hunger strike was an innocuous Act and, therefore, irrelevant. There the Court found that the said ground was to be read as a whole and as a part of series of incidents enumerated in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 which were relevant to the object i.e. maintenance of public order and, therefore, it was relevant. Here again the ground in para 10, which was by itself innocuous was interpreted to have the potentiality of disturbing public order in the light of other grounds which were of that nature. In that case also, each ground was examined to find out whether it had any nexus with object. The said decision also cannot be said to negative the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court that one irrelevant ground vitiated the whole order. 47. The other decision was in the case of (Madhav Roy v. State of Bengal)13, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 255. In this case the ground was a solitary instance of theft of copper return feeder wire of railway tracks, but while passing the order, the Magistrate had taken into consideration also the fact that the detenu was one of the antisocial elements and that he was indulging in committing theft of copper return feeder wire from railway tracks. The only contention which was negatived was that the District Magistrate in making the order had relied upon grounds which were not communicated to the detenu. In that case the Court upheld the detention order on the basis that the ground on which the detention order was passed had by itself a nexus to the object of the detention order. The only contention which was negatived was that the District Magistrate in making the order had relied upon grounds which were not communicated to the detenu. In that case the Court upheld the detention order on the basis that the ground on which the detention order was passed had by itself a nexus to the object of the detention order. In that case the question whether on one ground being irrelevant, the order was vitiated, did not arise for consideration. 48. The next decision was in the case of Ram Ranjan Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 609. In that case also the Court after examining the grounds in terms held that each of the three grounds viz. exploding bombs in an thickly populated area, exertion of grocery at pain of instant death from a grocer of the locality which made his customers flee from the shop and reckless hurling of bombs at the villagers had nexus with disturbance of the public order in the locality. 49. In that case also, each ground was considered to be by itself having potentiality of disturbing public order. No question as to whether on one ground being relevant the order was vitiated arose for consideration of the Court. 50. The unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court in (Chandrakant Shankar Kapade v. M.G. Mugwe, Commissioner of Police Bombay and others)14, Criminal Application No. 393 of 1975 (Vimadalal and Shah, JJ.), delivered on 3-7-1975, reported in 1975 U.C.R. (Bom.) 101, on which reliance has been placed, also shows that although the Court has relied upon the aforecited observations of Hidayatullah, C.J., in Arun Ghosh's case, the Court had considered each ground to see whether although it was between individual, had a potentiality of having a nexus to the object. The Court in terms considered the nature of each act in relation to its odd things, weapons used and the area covered. In doing so, the Court did find that grounds mentioned constituted a chain, but that was only in connection with the contention that each Act constituted only an act between individuals affecting only law and order. The Court there on looking into the totality of the similar activities alleged in the ground held that each ground had a potentiality of having a nexus with the object. The Court there on looking into the totality of the similar activities alleged in the ground held that each ground had a potentiality of having a nexus with the object. In that case, the Court did not hold that any of the grounds was irrelevant or having no nexus to the object nor did the question arose for the Court's consideration whether one irrelevant ground would vitiate the order. 51. In my view, therefore, none of the said decision negatived the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforecited decisions that one irrelevant ground would vitiate the whole order. 52. However, even if the said proposition of the learned Advocate General were to be accepted, the same has no application in this case. 53. The contention of the state is that in this case the various grounds or activities of assault, intimidation etc. relating to 18 companies where the detenu was seeking to dislodge the recognised union, constituted a chain of activities of the detenu which has been termed at the end of the grounds as 'a pattern of tactics' to pressurize the management. However, the learned Public Prosecutor conceded that even if the said alleged pattern were not to exist in case of even one of such companies the proposition cannot stand. 54. In my view, in the following grounds there was no question as to the detenu having adopted the alleged pattern of tactics. Ground (2):---Re. Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd. No question of seeking to dislodged the recognised union. Only allegation is that the detenu was asked to head the existing union. Ground (3):---Teksons Pvt. Ltd. No allegation of dislodging the recognised union. Ground (8):---Ashok Sunil and Company. In this case the detenu's union was already recognised by the company. There was no question of the detenu seeking to dislodge the recognised union. No question of pattern of tactics alleged would arise in this case. Ground (11):---Re. United Wire Rope :--- No allegation of either of establishing a rival union or dislodging the recognised union. Ground (17):---This ground has nothing to do with the alleged pattern of tactics as there is no allegation that it was in connection with the detenu seeking of dislodge the recognised union or establishing a rival union. 55. Ground (11):---Re. United Wire Rope :--- No allegation of either of establishing a rival union or dislodging the recognised union. Ground (17):---This ground has nothing to do with the alleged pattern of tactics as there is no allegation that it was in connection with the detenu seeking of dislodge the recognised union or establishing a rival union. 55. In that case the question of considering all the activities mentioned in the grounds of detention in their totality as a chain in connection with the question of the disturbance of public order would not arise. 56. The next ground of challenge to the validity of the detention order was that some of the grounds were vague. The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the ambit of expression 'vague' in its decision in the case of (State of Bombay v. Atmaram Shridhar Vaidya)15, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 157. There the Supreme Court as regards the expression 'vague' observed as under :-- "The contention that the grounds are vague requires some clarification. What is meant by vague? Vague can be considered as the antonym of 'definite'. If the ground which is supplied is incapable of being understood or defined with sufficient certainty it can be called vague. It is not possible to state affirmatively more on the question of what is vague. It must very according to the circumstances of each case. It is, however, improper to contend that a ground is necessarily vague if the only answer of the detained person can be to deny it. That is a matter of detail which has to be examined in the light of the circumstances of each case. If, on reading the ground furnished it is capable of being intelligently understood to enable the detained person to make a representation against the order of detention it cannot be called vague. The only argument which could be urged is that the language used in specifying the ground is so general that it does not permit the detained person to legitimately met the charge against him because the only answer which he can make it to say that he did not Act, as generally suggested. In certain cases that argument may support the contention that having regard to the general language used in the ground he has not been given the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the order of detention. In certain cases that argument may support the contention that having regard to the general language used in the ground he has not been given the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the order of detention. It cannot be disputed that the representation mentioned in the second part of Article 22(5) must be one which on being considered may given relief to the detained person". (Underlining supplied) 57. In that case the Court also observed at page 163 of the report that :--- "On the other hand, the question whether the vagueness or indefinite nature of the statement furnished to the detained person is such as to give him a earliest opportunity to make a representation to the authority is a matter with the jurisdiction of the Court's enquiry and subject to the Court's decision." 58. The connotation of the expression 'vague' was again reiterated by the Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Naresh Chandra Gangule for (Shri Ram Prasad v. The State of West Bengal and others)16, 1969 A.I.R. S.C. 1335. 59. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in this case the following 7 grounds were vague. They are :--- Ground (1)(ii) :---Re. Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt. Ltd. This relates to certain unidentified persons/workers supposed to be members of the union of the detenu having assaulted one Shri Siddhanath Baburao Misra. It states that the case was classified as true but undetected on 30th June, 1980. Ground 1(v) :---It also deals with all incidents of 13th June, 1980 regarding certain unidentified persons assaulting one Shantaram Indersingh Farista, Security Supervisor, Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt. Ltd. while he was on duty and alleges that this work appears to be the work of followers of the detenu. Ground 2(i) :---Re. Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd. This relates to an incident of 6th August, 1980 pertaining to alleged stoning of bus and gheraoing of the loyal workers. Although inspite of the fact that the persons concerned are stated to be unidentified, the ground alleges them to be owing allegiance to the union of the detenu. In fact the case papers Exhibit 23 on which the ground is a based does not bear out the said allegation. It only speaks about a possibility that the store throwing might have taken place due to union activity. Ground 4(i) :---Re. Uni-Deritand Precision Castings. In fact the case papers Exhibit 23 on which the ground is a based does not bear out the said allegation. It only speaks about a possibility that the store throwing might have taken place due to union activity. Ground 4(i) :---Re. Uni-Deritand Precision Castings. It relates to the incidents of 18th March, 1982 and 24th March, 1981 alleging that some workers alleged to be the followers of detenu's union were found squatting inside the factory and obviously in pursuance of the instructions issued by the detenu they had damaged some expensive mould worth Rs. 9,200/-. In this case also the papers who are alleged to have caused damage are not identified rand referred to in the F.I.R. Exhibit 40 as only workers of the company. Ground 4(ii) :---This relates to an incident of 5th April, 1981 alleging that the workers affiliated to the old recognised union (CITU) gave assurance in writing and started working while those from the detenu's union gathered outside the factory gate and shoted slogans in abusive language against the management and the loyal workers. Ground 17 :---Relates to the incident of certain workers having gone to the residence of one Bauskar Administrative Manager of Bayer India Ltd. at Dombivali in his absence and threatened his wife about murdering her husband. According to the ground the workers were unidentified. Although in her complaint the lady had shown her willingness to identify the persons they have till this day remained unidentified. 60. In respect of all the above instances, it is clear that neither any over act on the part of the detenu nor even his presence is alleged in the ground either directly or impliedly The complaints or case papers on which the said incidents are based refer to the persons concerned in the incidents only as workers of the company and they have as expressly mentioned in the grounds remained unidentified even to the Detaining Authority. The allegation by the Detaining Authority as they being either supposed to be members of the detenu's union or followers of the detenu or owing allegiance to his union or his followers are purely out of imagination and do not prevent the ground being vague. 61. The allegation by the Detaining Authority as they being either supposed to be members of the detenu's union or followers of the detenu or owing allegiance to his union or his followers are purely out of imagination and do not prevent the ground being vague. 61. Under the circumstances in my view, on the grounds as stated, they were incapable of being intelligently understood or could be said to be sufficiently understood or could be said to be sufficiently definite to furnish materials to enable the detenu to make representation against the order. As pointed out above, in this case neither any over act on the part of the detenu nor his presence either expressed or implied being alleged and the activity being held out to be his only in the imagination that the persons concerned were his followers or members of the union etc. although the complaints did not so, the said grounds would not enable the detenu to make an effective representation so that on being considered it may given him relief. 62. As against this, the learned Advocates General has firstly contended that merely because certain particulars of the persons concerned were not mentioned in the grounds they did not become vague. 63. In support of the said contention, he has sought torely on certain decisions of the Supreme Court. 64. The first is in the case of (Naresh Chandra v. State of West Bengal)17, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 1335. 65. In that case the ground was that petitioner intended to proceed to Delhi on 9-10-1958 with a view to instigate plans against personal security of the Prime Minister. The ground was alleged to be vague. The Court pointing out that the vagueness was a relative terms and its meaning must vary according to the facts and circumstances of each case, held that in that particular case the place, date and purpose of the planned nefarious activity were stated and the ground was not vague. 66. The other decision was in the case of (Sk. Hasan Ali v. State of West Bengal)18, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2590. In that case the grounds stated amongst other things that the detenu with his associates was concerned in the incident. It was contended that since the associates names were not mentioned, the ground was vague. 66. The other decision was in the case of (Sk. Hasan Ali v. State of West Bengal)18, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2590. In that case the grounds stated amongst other things that the detenu with his associates was concerned in the incident. It was contended that since the associates names were not mentioned, the ground was vague. The Court negatived the said contention as it found that the date, time and place of the incidents were already stated in the ground apprising him of the precise activity on which order of detention was made. 67. The third decision is in the case of (Milan Bank v. State of West Bengal)19, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1214. The grounds mentioned that the detenu and his associates had committed robbery. It was contended that not mentioning the names of the associates made the ground vague. The Court negatived the said contention on the same basis as in the aforecited case of Hasan Ali as it found that the time and place of the incident as well as its particulars were properly given. 68. Relying on the said decision, it was contended by the learned Advocate General that in this case also when the grounds gave time, place and the nature of the incident that cannot be termed vague merely because the names of the persons were not given. 69. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the aforecited decision, the question of vagueness depend on facts and circumstances of each case. 70. The said decision cannot apply to the facts of this case. In all the above cases, the grounds alleged an over Act on the part of the detenu himself with others. In those cases in the grounds the detenu was alleged to be directly involved in the incidents while setting out the time, place and particulars, so that the detenu being in the know of the incident merely not knowing the names of this associates would not have prevented him from making an effective representation so that the ground could be considered as vague. However, that is not the case here. There is no direct involvement of the detenu alleged in this case nor even his presence at the time of incident has been alleged. However, that is not the case here. There is no direct involvement of the detenu alleged in this case nor even his presence at the time of incident has been alleged. On the contrary, without any material to that effect, the acts of the workers of the companies are sought to be held out against him only on the ground that they were his followers, or members of his union etc. Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, non-disclosure of the persons enumerated in the incident made the grounds vague. 71. The further contention of the learned Advocate General relying on Article 22(5) of the Constitution was that if the grounds lacked particulars, the detenu had under Article 22(5) of the Constitution a right to ask for the same, and if asked, the same would have been supplied to him and since the detenu had not exercised that right he cannot be heard to complaint that the grounds were vague. 72. Firstly, it is difficult to see if asked for by the detenu, what particulars would have been supplied by the Detaining Authority when even to the Detaining Authority as well as the complainants persons responsible for the acts have remained unidentified. 73. That apart, the very same contention came to be negatived by the Supreme Court in its decision in the case of (Prabhu Dayal Deorah v. The District Magistrate Kamrup and others)20, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 183. In that case the ground of detention was that the detenu was milling rice illegally and then smuggling the same outside the State. The Court there found that the particulars as regards the smuggling not having been given, the ground was vague and, therefore, the detention order could not stand. While dealing with the said contention, the same as raised by the learned Advocate General here, viz., that had the particulars been asked for by the detenu, the same would have been furnished to him, the Court at page 198 of the report observed: "Nor are we satisfied that the fact that the petitioners could have asked for further particulars but that they did not do so, would be enough to salvage the orders of detention. The right to call for particulars has been recognised in Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya's case 1951 S.C.R. 167 : A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 157 as flowing from the constitutional right to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to make representation. This Court said in (Lawrence Joachim Joseph D'Souza's)21, case, 1956 S.C.R. 382 : A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 531, that if the grounds are not sufficient to enable the detenu to make a representation, the detenu, if he likes, may ask for particulars which would enable him to make the representation and the fact that he had made no such application for particulars is a circumstance which may well be taken into consideration, in deciding whether the grounds can be considered to be vague. If a ground communicated to the detenu is vague the fact that the detenu could have but did not ask for further particulars is immaterial. That would be relevant only for considering the question whether the ground is vague or not. (Underlining supplied) I have stated above that in my view, the aforestated grounds of detention were vague and would not have enabled the detenu to make an effective representation. If that were so, then as laid down in the aforecited decisions of the Supreme Court in Prabhu Dayal's case, the question whether the detenu could have asked for the particular or not and if asked the Detaining Authority would have supplied the same, would be irrelevant and would not prevent the order being held to be invalid. The said contentions of the learned Advocate General, therefore, cannot be accepted. 74. By discussing the various grounds above, I have found out that many of the activities mentioned therein have no nexus to the detenu showing total non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority or showing no nexus to the object of the order and were, therefore, irrelevant or that some of them were vague. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in various decisions mentioned above, even if any of the grounds were irrelevant or suffering from non-application of mind or vague, the whole order of detention was vitiated as invalid. In this case since as the detention order suffers from various vices mentioned above, the same would stand vitiated and was invalid under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. 75. Two other contentions were raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In this case since as the detention order suffers from various vices mentioned above, the same would stand vitiated and was invalid under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. 75. Two other contentions were raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. One of them was that even before the detenu could make a representation against the detention order, the Hon'ble the Chief Minister of Maharashtra had publicly announced that the detenu would not be released thereby making the detenu's right of having his representation properly considered totally sham and invalid. The other was that many of the documents supplied to the detenu along with the grounds being either totally illegible and some of them blank, the detenu was deprived of his right to make an effective representation. 76. Since this petition could be disposed of on the first contention as to irrelevancy and vagueness of the grounds, it is not necessary to deal with the said two contentions. 77. In my view, therefore, under the circumstances, the detention order cannot be sustained and deserved to be set aside. Per D.N. MEHTA, J.:---I have had the advantage of listening to the judgment delivered by my learned brother Rege, J. I wish to say at the outset that I agree with and endorse all the conclusions arrived at by my learned brother. Since the arguments on both the sides have been elaborate and exhaustive, I wish to add a few observations in support of the conclusion that the grounds in the instant case are vague in some cases and in some others no nexus has been established between the detenu and the objectionable activities. 2. Before dealing with the contentions raised on behalf of the detenu, I should like to deal with the question of Court's power of judicial review. We have been reminded by the learned Advocate General on more than one occasion that we were not sitting in criminal appeals; that our jurisdiction was not extensive as that in criminal appeals. He stated that the jurisdiction of the Court in detention matters was limited and peripheral and that the jurisdiction was one of anticipation and suspicion, That indeed is true. He stated that the jurisdiction of the Court in detention matters was limited and peripheral and that the jurisdiction was one of anticipation and suspicion, That indeed is true. As observed by Lord Atkinson in (Rex v. Halliday)22, 1917 Appeal Cases 260, at page 275:--- "Preventive detention being a precautionary measure, it must necessarily proceed in all cases, to some extent, on suspicion or anticipation as distinct from proof." The question then is as to what is the scope and extent of judicial review. Does it mean that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was wholly immune from judicial review? Bhagwati, J., in Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal, reported in A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 550 observed: "Where the liberty of the subject is involved, it is the bounden duty of the Court to satisfy itself that all the safeguards provided by the law have been scrupulously observed and the subject is not deprived of his personal liberty otherwise than in accordance with law." 3. Bhagwati, J., then went on to explain the scope and extent of judicial review in the following words :--- "But that does not mean that subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is wholly immune from judicial review. The courts have by judicial decisions, limited though it be, within which the validity of the subjective satisfaction can yet be subjected to judicial scrutiny. The basic postulates on which the courts have proceeded is that the subjective satisfaction being a condition precedent for the exercise of the power conferred on the executive, the Court can always examine whether the requisite satisfaction is arrived at by the authority: if it is not, the condition precedent to the exercise of the power would not be fulfilled and the exercise of the power would be bad. There are several grounds evolved by judicial decisions for saying that no subjective satisfaction is arrived at by the authority as required under the statute." The learned Judges, then proceeded to set out the following eight cases in which Court's interference was called for :--- "1. The first and the simplest case was where the authority had not applied its mind at all. 2. Where the power was exercised dishonestly or for an improper purpose. Such a case would also negative the existence of the satisfaction on the part of the authority. 3. The first and the simplest case was where the authority had not applied its mind at all. 2. Where the power was exercised dishonestly or for an improper purpose. Such a case would also negative the existence of the satisfaction on the part of the authority. 3. The satisfaction must be the satisfaction of the authority itself and, therefore, if, in exercising the power, the authority has acted under the direction of another body, then the exercise would be bad. 4. If the authority had disabled itself from applying its mind to the facts of each individual case by self-created rules of policy or in any other manner, the exercise of the power would be vitiated. 5. The order would be bad where it was based on the application of a wrong test of the misconstruction of a statute. 6. The satisfaction must be grounded on materials which are of rationally probative value. The grounds on which the satisfaction is based must be such as a rational human being can consider connected with the facts in respect of which the satisfaction is to be reached. 7. The discretion granted to the authority is to be exercised according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to the private opinion..................according to law and not humour. It was to be, not arbitrary, vague, fanciful, but legal and regular. 8. The order would be bad if the authority had come to a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it." In all the above cases the Court's interference was called for. 4. In the case of Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 870. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court described the powers of review pithily in the following terms :--- "It is now well settled that grounds of detention must be pertinent and not irrelevant, proximate and not stale, precise and not vague. Irrelevance, staleness and vagueness are vices any single one of which is sufficient to vitiate a ground of detention." 5. The order of detention herein has been impugned by the detenu on the following three grounds :--- (i) That the detenu was supplied with documents in support of the grounds, which were illegible in some cases and in other cases completely blank. The order of detention herein has been impugned by the detenu on the following three grounds :--- (i) That the detenu was supplied with documents in support of the grounds, which were illegible in some cases and in other cases completely blank. That being so, the detenu was prevented from making an effective representation against the said order and consequently there was a breach of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. (ii) The second ground on which the order of detention was assailed was that the grounds furnished to the detenu were vague in some cases and in other cases no nexus had been established to connect the detenu with the activities complained of. (iii) The third ground on which the order of detention was impugned was that the Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra had categorically pronounced in a Press Conference as also in a meeting with a delegation of trade unionists that he had no intention to release the detenu at any cost. These public statements had been made prior to the detenu making his representation. Since the Chief Minister held the profile of home and as such he would consider the detenu's representation, it was contended that he had pre-judged the issue and the detenu's representation under these circumstances would not be impartially considered. It was urged that on this ground also the order of detention ought to be struck down. 6. I shall now deal with the first contention raised on behalf of the detenu. Shri Patel, learned Counsel on behalf of the detenu, produced before us a number of documents which had been supplied to the detenu. He pointed out that several of these documents were illegible, some of them were over-written and some other were completely blank. He stated that in these circumstances it was well-niegh impossible for the detenu to make any effective and meaningful representation and thus the detenu's fundamental right of making a representation to the Detaining Authority under Article 22-A(5) of the Constitution had been violated. It will be relevant at this stage to refer to certain dates of the events as they occurred. 7. The order of detention in the instant case was dated the 23rd of June, 1981. It will be relevant at this stage to refer to certain dates of the events as they occurred. 7. The order of detention in the instant case was dated the 23rd of June, 1981. On 24th June, 1981 the detenu was arrested near the Shivaji Park Maidan where he was about to address a public meeting, and the order of detention was served on him. At that time the grounds were not served on the detenu. The detenu was then taken to the Akola District Prison. On 28th June, 1981 a Police Officer was deputed to proceed to the Akola District Prison with the grounds of detention and the documents. The said officer attempted to serve the grounds of detention as also the documents on the detenu. The detenu, however, refused to accept the grounds as also the documents accompanying the grounds and requested the officer to deliver the same to his wife. On 29-6-1981 a Police Officer visited the detenu's residence in Bombay and tried to serve the grounds as also the documents on the detenu's wife as per his request. On that day the detenu's wife refused to accept the same and directed the Police Officer to serve the same on the detenu's Advocate. On the next day i.e. on 30th June, 1981 the detenu's wife accepted grounds as well as the documents furnished therewith. 8. The learned Advocate General has pointed out that the documents which were illegible or blank were part of the set which had been furnished to the detenu's wife. The learned Advocate General stated that the grounds and documents which were furnished to the detenu were neither illegible nor blank. They were all legible copies. The learned Advocate General contended that under Article 22(5) of the Constitution the fundamental right of being served with the grounds as well as the material on which the Detaining Authority relied, was the right of the detenu and that right could not be transferred by the detenu to any other person. In support of this submission, in the case of (Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income-tax)23, reported in A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 149 at p. 163 wherein their Lordships were pleased to observe :--- "This in my opinion is the true position and it cannot, therefore, be urged that it is open to a citizen to waive his fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the bulwark of the fundamental rights which have been for the first time enacted in the Constitution and it would be a sacrilege to whittle down those rights in the manner attempted to be done." 9. In the instant case the Detaining Authority in the first instance made an attempt to serve the detenu with a set of grounds as also the documents on which the order was based. The detenu, however, refused to accept that set of grounds and documents. He directed the officer who attempted to serve the grounds and the documents to serve the same on his wife. It is the case of the respondents, which has not been denied, that it was the set which was served on the detenu's wife which contained illegible and blank documents. If a detenu chooses not to accept the grounds and the documents served on him and directs the officer who had come to serve the same, to furnish the grounds and the documents to his wife or his Advocate, is it then open to him to make grievance that the set of papers served on his wife contained illegible and blank documents? Assuming that in a given case a detenu refused to accept the grounds and the documents, and call upon the Detaining Authority to serve them on his wife, and the Detaining Authority extends the facility of serving the grounds as well as the documents on his wife and in the process of this circumlocution the statutory limit of five days lapses, will it be open then to the detenu to say that the grounds had not been served within the period of five days as prescribed under section 8 of the National Security Act? I think not. On the same analogy assuming that the grounds of detention and the documents served on the detenu were refused by him with a direction to serve them on his wife and the set of grounds and documents served on his wife contained illegible documents, can it then be stated by the detenu that he was prevented from making an effective and a meaningful representation to the Detaining Authority? I agree with the submission made by the learned Advocate General that fundamental rights cannot be waived much less can they be transferred by one citizen to another. I agree with the submission made by the learned Advocate General that fundamental rights cannot be waived much less can they be transferred by one citizen to another. I, therefore, do not think that there is any valid basis in the grievance made by the Shri Patel that the detenu was served with illegible or blank copies of the grounds and documents. In the circumstances stated by me aforesaid, I do not think that this ground is tenable and I, therefore, reject it. 10. I shall now deal with the second contention submitted by Shri Patel that the grounds of detention were vague in some cases and in other cases no nexus had been established between the detenu and the objectionable activities. Unlike in some of the case which we have come across in the course of the present sitting, which contained only one or two grounds, the Detaining Authority in the instant case has formulated a battery of grounds, as many as eighteen, against the detenu. The Detaining Authority appears to have taken some pains to weave out a pattern of activity indulged in by the detenu in the course of his career as a trade unionist. This pattern of activity comprised of incidence of violence in eighteen industries or factories wherein the detenu made an attempt and in some succeeded to have his union i.e. the Association of Engineering Workers or the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union recognised by the management thereof. If in the course of this attempt the management resisted his will, then, according to the Detaining Authority, the detenu encouraged the workers to indulge in threats, gheraos, assaults, and in one case, even murder. The pattern of activities thus set out in the grounds was in respect of each industry which constituted a ground in itself and under each head of ground, several instances of violence or threats were enumerated. Cumulatively, therefore, the grounds were eighteen in number involving eighteen industries or factories and the incidents of violence therein numbered seventy in all. 11. At this stage, it will be relevant to consider the question as to what is a "ground" since the learned Advocate General submitted that the seventy instances narrated in the various grounds did not constitute a "ground" but that only the preamble or the conclusion formulated by the Detaining Authority could be considered as a "ground". 11. At this stage, it will be relevant to consider the question as to what is a "ground" since the learned Advocate General submitted that the seventy instances narrated in the various grounds did not constitute a "ground" but that only the preamble or the conclusion formulated by the Detaining Authority could be considered as a "ground". The learned Advocate General contended that the various instances ought not to be considered as forming part of the grounds. It has, therefore, become necessary to find out as to what is meant by the word "ground". The Supreme Court gave the following definition of the word "ground" in the case of Khudiram Das cited heretofore. The learned Judges stated :--- "It is obvious that the "grounds" mean all the basic facts and materials which have been taken into account by the Detaining Authority in making the order of detention and on which, therefore, the order of detention is based. "Grounds" does not merely mean a recital or reproduction of a ground of satisfaction of the authority in the language of section 3 of the Act; nor is its connotation restricted to a bare statement of conclusions of fact. It means something more. That "something" is the factual constituent of the "grounds" on which the subjective satisfaction of the authority is based. The basic facts and material particulars, therefore, which are the foundation of the order of detention will also be covered by "grounds" within the contemplation of Article 22(5) and section 8, and are required to be communicated to the detenu unless their disclosure is considered by the authority to be against the public interest." I am, therefore, of the view that the eighteen grounds consist not only of the pattern sought to be established by the Detaining Authority but also all the incidents, seventy in number which have been enumerated in the grounds supplied to the detenu. It is also important to note, and this is uncontroverted, that in none of these seventy incidents of violence was the detenu involved directly or involved even as an abetter. 12. It is also important to note, and this is uncontroverted, that in none of these seventy incidents of violence was the detenu involved directly or involved even as an abetter. 12. The several grounds and incidents have been analysed and scanned seriatim by my learned brother and it is not necessary for me to go into great detail except to say that the grounds in the instant case appear to suffer from two glaring infirmities; firstly, that in a number of cases the incidents are irrelevant or extraneous and have no nexus as between the detenu and the objectionable activity; secondly that the incidents fail to fit into the pattern of activity set out in the ground i.e. the recognition of his union by the detenu. In the first category come the following incidents :--- Ground one: This ground relates to an industry known as Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt. Ltd., situated at Kolshet Road, Thane. In this case it has been stated that the detenu organised a rival union and insisted on the management recognising the same. Ground 1, incident No. (ii) is in the following terms :--- "Some of the unidentified workers suspected to be of your union assaulted one Shri Siddanath Baurao Misra, watchman of the company on his head with iron bars on 30-5-1980 at 06.15 hrs. threatening him not to go to work. The offence was registered at Kapurbawadi Police Station. The case was classified as true but undetected." On the face of it, the Detaining Authority was not aware of the names of the workers who had indulged in the assault on the watchman of the company. However, the ground mentioned that these workers were suspected as belonging to the union of the detenu. The learned Advocate General referred us to the documents accompanying the grounds and in the instant case the relevant document was Ex. No. 3. Ex. No. 3 is the First Information Report lodged by the watchman. In the F.I.R. all that is stated is that the accused were the workers of Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt. Ltd. The complainant further stated that while going to work, he was assaulted with iron bars by some workers telling him to go to work and that if he did so he would be beaten. Ex. No. 2 on which reliance has been placed by the Detaining Authority does not carry the matter further. Ex. No. 2 on which reliance has been placed by the Detaining Authority does not carry the matter further. Therefore, in this ground the Detaining Authority has complained against some unidentified workers and he suspected them to belong to the union of the delem, without there being any material from which the inference could be drawn. 13. Similar is the case with ground No. 1, incident No. (v). In this instance it has been stated : "On 13-6-1980 at 02.30 hrs. some unidentified persons assaulted one Shantaram Indersingh Farista, Security supervisor, Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt. Ltd. while he was on duty threatening him not to work. This obviously appears to be the work of your followers. An offence was registered at kapurbawadi Police Station and the F.I.R. is Ex. No. 6". The F.I.R. (Ex. No. 6) lodged by the said Farista stated that the accused were workers of Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt. Ltd., of the 3rd shift whose names were not known. The complainant further stated that of late in the above company, workers were going slow on work and left the machines running. They left the factory and stayed outside. At about 2.30 a.m. when the complainant went near the company 15 or 20 workers who were sitting outside the company shouted "Parkdo, Maro". The accompanying Havaldar and a constable rescued him. The assailants were the workers of the company. The F.I.R. in the instant case also does not throw any light with regard to the identity of the 'unidentified workers' nor does it disclose the fact whether these assailants were the members of the union of the detenu. There is, therefore, no nexus established as between the miscreants on the one hand and the detenu or his union on the other. 14. With regard to ground No. 1, incident No. (vii) the position is much the same. In this instance it has been stated :--- "Not satisfied with the above violent activity, on 16-8-1980 at 13.30 hrs. Dilbag. M. Tiwari, the same Production Officer of the company, was stabbed by some sneaking assailants near the factory while he was going to the factory. As the assailants could not be identified, the case was registered at Kapurbawdi Police Station and was closed as true but undetected." In this instance, reliance has been placed on Ex. No. 9 which is the F.I.R. of the said Tiwari. As the assailants could not be identified, the case was registered at Kapurbawdi Police Station and was closed as true but undetected." In this instance, reliance has been placed on Ex. No. 9 which is the F.I.R. of the said Tiwari. The name of the accused has been shown as 'one Wellman workers name and address not known.' The complainant stated that in his company Dr. Samant's Maharashtra General Kamagar Union was the union. Following the lock out on 13-3-1980, the company was closed. But the workers kept sitting near the gate. The above company's worker attacked him with a sharp weapon. The complainant further stated that as he was parking his scooter near the gate, one person working in the company came from behind and attacked him with a sharp weapon and ran away. He was chased by a policeman, but could not be caught. He stated that this incident was witnessed by four other workers whose names he did not know. In the case of this incident also the F.I.R. does not reveal the identity of the sneaking assailant who stabbed the Production Officer Tiwari. Consequently the remark on the F.I.R. that the case was closed as true but not detected. The question, therefore, is if the complainant in each of these cases complained of unidentified workers or persons or sneaking assailants and then went on to say that these persons were suspected of belonging to the union of the detenu, was there any basis or material on which he could have arrived at that conclusion? When the Detaining Authority draws the same conclusion, can it be stated that it is a conclusion which any reasonable Authority could have arrived at on the material before him? In all these incidents mentioned heretofore, it is difficult to see how any nexus has been established as between the assailants and the detenu or even his union. 15. The learned Advocate General submitted that even if a ground appeared to be vague for the reason that the names of the assailants were not disclosed, the detenu could have asked for particulars, a right which he enjoyed under Article 22(6) of the Constitution. He stated that if such particulars had been called for, the Detaining Authority would have been in a position to clarify the names and thus to give a definiteness to the vague ground. He stated that if such particulars had been called for, the Detaining Authority would have been in a position to clarify the names and thus to give a definiteness to the vague ground. In support of his contention the learned Advocate General relied upon the Supreme Court ruling in the case of The State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya, reported in A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 157, wherein Kania, C.J. observed :--- "But when grounds which have a rational connection with the ends mentioned in section 3 of the Act are supplied, the first condition is satisfied. If the grounds are not sufficient to enable the detenu to make a representation, the detenu can rely on his second right and if he likes may ask for particulars which will enable him to make the representation. On an infringement of either of these two rights, the detained person has a right to approach the Court that there has been an infringement of his fundamental right and even if the infringement of the second part of the right under Article 22(5) is established he is bound to be released by the Court." 16. The learned Advocate General also drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. The State of Tamil Nadu)24, reported in A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 541, wherein their Lordships observed :-- "So it is that where insufficient particulars are mentioned in the grounds, the detenu is entitled to call for better particulars. That is a right which flows from the constitutional right to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to make representation. Of course, where the grounds are vague, no question would arise of the detenu asking for better particulars." Relying on these authorities, the learned Advocate General contended that had the detenu called for further particulars from the Detaining Authority, the Detaining Authority would have been in a position to supplant some precision or definiteness to the ground, which in the instant case, was vague. 17. In this connection, reference may be made to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Prabhu Dayal Deorah v. District Magistrate Kamrup, reported in A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 183, wherein the learned Judges were pleased to hold :--- "If a ground communicated to the detenu is vague, the fact that the detenu could have, but did not, ask for further particulars is immaterial. That would be relevant only for considering the question whether the ground is vague or not." Now in the three incidents cited above, the Detaining Authority disclosed in no uncertain terms that he was not in a position to furnish the names of the workers who had assaulted the company employees. In these circumstances, I fail to understand what purpose would have been served and the detenu asked for any particulars from the Detaining Authority. It is, therefore, futile to contend that the ground which is vague in the first instance could have gained any precision or definiteness had the detenu asked for further particulars from the Detaining Authority. I am, therefore, not impressed with this submission of the learned Advocate General and in respect of these three incidents in ground No. 1, I hold that these grounds are irrelevant and no nexus has been established between the detenu and the assailants or the acts complained of. To that extent, these grounds would also be vague. 18. I shall now refer to ground No. 1 incident No. (x). In this instance, it is alleged that on 12-1-1981 the detenu held a meeting of 500 workers at the company's gate. The detenu addressed the meeting for a few minutes and then left abruptly. After his departure, his close assistants T.S. Boarde, General Secretary of the detenu's union, Shri Mungekar, Joint Secretary, S.K. Shaikh, Chabukswar, Ram Avatar Singh and others addressed the workers and instigated them to commit offences like assaults and rioting in order to create an atmosphere of terror so that the management of Wellman as also other managements would come round and settle the matters with the detenu. On the next day an offence was registered against T.S. Borade and seven others at Kapurbawdi Police Station. The report of this meeting has been furnished as Ex. No. 14. On a perusal of this document it is clear that the instigation to commit offences or to create an atmosphere of terror was not induced by the detenu himself but by his colleagues of collaborators. In the ground itself it is mentioned that the detenu left the place after addressing the meeting only for a few minutes. Can, therefore, the detenu be held responsible for the speeches made by his colleagues? This ground, therefore, also lacks any nexus as far as the detenu is concerned. 19. In the ground itself it is mentioned that the detenu left the place after addressing the meeting only for a few minutes. Can, therefore, the detenu be held responsible for the speeches made by his colleagues? This ground, therefore, also lacks any nexus as far as the detenu is concerned. 19. The next ground is ground No. 1 incident No. (xvii). In this ground it was alleged that from the incidents in Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt. Ltd. it became clear that the detenu had encouraged violence which had alarmed not only the loyal workers, the management staff and other workers and managements in the area of Kolshet Road but also the law abiding public on the public roads and those using public transport; thus posing a threat to public order. Now from the 17 incidents which have been appended to ground No. 1, it would be difficult to find any material from which one could conclude that it was the detenu who had encouraged violence amongst the workers. There appears to be no basis or no material whatever on which the Detaining Authority could have come to this conclusion. I must, therefore, conclude that the conclusion arrived at by the Detaining Authority is a conclusion which no reasonable person could have arrived at. 20. Ground No. 2 concerns as industry known as Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd. In the preamble to this ground it has been stated that in August 1980 the detenu tried to infiltrate his union and have it recognised by the management of this concern. Since the union was not recognised, it is alleged that the detenu instigated his followers to use unfair labour practices such as go slow which began from 16-11-1980. Here again there appears no basis for arriving at this conclusion that it was the detenu who instigated the workers to follow a go slow policy. But what is more surprising is that in incident No. (i) which is appended to this ground it has been stated that on 6-10-1980 a bus taking the loyal workers of the said company proceeding to the Railway Station was stoned by workers owing allegiance to the union of the detenu, that four workers in the bus were injured and damage of Rs. 800/- was caused to the bus. On a perusal of Ex. 800/- was caused to the bus. On a perusal of Ex. No. 23 which is the F.I.R. of some workers travelling in the bus, one does not find any mention of the fact that the assailants were the persons who owed allegiance to the union of the detenu. There is, therefore, no connection established between the perpetrators who pelted the stones and the union of the detenu, muchless with the detenu himself. This ground also, therefore, must be held to be vague and irrelevant. 21. Ground No. 3 concerns the factory of M/s. Teksons Pvt. Ltd. situated at Koshet Road, Thane. In the preamble it is stated that the detenu tried to enter his union into the factory and have it recognised by the management. In incident No. (iv) of this ground concerning M/s. Teksons Pvt. Ltd., it is stated that on 30-5-1981 at 16.00 hrs. the detenu's followers obviously with his covert encouragement assaulted Shri Sarvatsing who had approached the management to seek a job as a Security Officer. The incident, it is alleged, took place in a local train between Kanjur Marg and Ghatkopar, where the said Sarvatsing was assaulted with a cycle chain the presence of the travelling public. This incident cause commotion in the train and created panic and terror amongst the law abiding commuters. Reliance has been placed on Exhibit No. 38 which was the F.I.R. of the said Sarvatsingh. In the column, name of the accused it has been mentioned : In all 7 persons name and address not know of whom two were from Teksons Company. The complainant stated that he was interviewed and asked to commence worked from 31-5-1981. He then stated that seven persons armed it knife, gupti and cycle chains come in the train and threateningly asked him for the letter of appointment, since he did not hand over the letter of appointment, they beat him with cycle chains. He stated that he was not aware of the fact that there was a strike in the company. He also stated that he was not aware of the factor that there was a strike in the company. He also stated that he would be able to identify two out of the seven assailants. He stated that he was not aware of the fact that there was a strike in the company. He also stated that he was not aware of the factor that there was a strike in the company. He also stated that he would be able to identify two out of the seven assailants. On a perusal of the F.I.R., it will be seen that not a word is stated that the seven assailants belongs to the union of the detenu although what was mentioned was that two of the workers were from M/s. Teksons Pvt. Ltd. This incident is also an example of how the Detaining Authority has relied on his imagination in arriving at the conclusions that the assailants were the followers of the detenu and that they had received covert encouragement from the detenu without the slighted basis for arriving at such a conclusion. The grounds, therefore, has no connection or nexus as between the detenu and the assailants, so far as this incident which has been complained of. 22. Ground No. 4 relate to the factory of M/s. Uni-Deritand Precisions Castings which was situated as S.V. Road, Manpada, Thane. In Incident No. (i) appended to this ground it has been stated that on 8-3-1981 and 24-3-1981 the followers of the union of the detenu squatted inside the factory 'obviously on your instructions' and damaged expensive moulds worth Rs. 9,200/- in respect of which two criminal cases were registered at the Kapurbawadi Police Station. The F.I.R. in respect of this incident has been furnished to the detenu as Exhibit No. 40. On a perusal of this F.I.R., it becomes apparent that there was nothing in the F.I.R. to suggest that the miscreants who caused damage to the expensive moulds were the followers of the union belonging to the detenu. There is also nothing in the F.I.R. to suggest that the damage was caused under the instructions of the detenu. There is, therefore, no material or basis upon which the Detaining Authority could have come to the conclusion that the miscreants in respect of this incident belonged to the union of the detenu or that they were working under his instructions. 23. Ground No. 7 related to a company known as Ferrodie Ltd. situated at Wagle Estate, Thane. There is, therefore, no material or basis upon which the Detaining Authority could have come to the conclusion that the miscreants in respect of this incident belonged to the union of the detenu or that they were working under his instructions. 23. Ground No. 7 related to a company known as Ferrodie Ltd. situated at Wagle Estate, Thane. Here also it is stated that the detenu wanted the management to recognise his union and for that purpose he ordered the management to see him at his residence. Incident No. (i) appended to this ground is in respect of an incident which took place on 13-4-1981 when a lorry going out of the factory with finished goods was obstructed by the followers of the detenu and its driver was threatened. Now it is pertinent to note that in this ground only a nebulous expression such as 'your followers' has been made use of. Who the followers were or on what basis it was stated that they were the follows of the detenu, is not mentioned in that ground. Exhibit No. 56, the F.I.R. on which reliance has been placed, does not make this position clear. 24. A similar expression i.e. 'your followers' can also be found in incident No. (i) appended to Ground No. 8 which is in respect of a company known as Ashok Sunil Company situated at Wagle Estate, Thane. In this incident it was alleged that on 6-5-1981 the followers of the detenu gheraoed the management, after which an offence was registered. Here also no attempt has been made to show any connection between the detenu and the miscreants. 25. Ground No. 9, incident No. (i) concerns a factory known as Fouress Engineer (India) Pvt. Ltd., situated at Wagle Estate, Thane. In incident No. (i) appended to this ground it has been stated that on 19-12-1980 the detenu organised a public meeting in front of the gate of the company and his associates Arivind Bhiva Wani and others made provocative speeches and used abusive words against the police and the management at the instigation of the detenu. The relevant documents on which reliance has been placed is marked Exhibit No. 66. On a perusal of this document there appears to be no basis for coming to the conclusion that Wani had made a speech at the instigation of the detenue. 26. The relevant documents on which reliance has been placed is marked Exhibit No. 66. On a perusal of this document there appears to be no basis for coming to the conclusion that Wani had made a speech at the instigation of the detenue. 26. Another incident which savours of rank ambiguity is furnished in incident No. (iii) of Ground No. 12 which concerns a factory known as Golden Dyes Corporation. In incident No. (iii) it has been mentioned that on 19-2-1981 Shantaram Choudhary and others held a meeting at the gate and threatened the management that they would not be allowed to go by Thane Agra Road. In this ground it has not even been mentioned that Shataram Choudhary had any connection with the detenu or his union. However, in the report prepared by the police and furnished to the detenu as Exhibit No. 85 there is a bald statement that these men belonged to the Datta Samant Union. A labour union may consist of hundreds of workers as its members. The question : can the President or an office bearer of a labour union be held responsible for the individual acts of its members unless it was shown that the President or the office bearers directly instigated the same? 27. In Incident No. (iv) relating to Ground No. 12 in respect of Golden Dyes Corporations it has been stated that on Naronha of M/s. Francis Kaleins Pvt. Ltd. wanted to meet the management of Golden Dyes. He was obstructed by 'your men' and was thus unable to enter the factory premises, but was able to enter the factory premises only on the intervention of the police. Whilst coming out to the factory, Naronha was held and robbed of his brief case. If the Detaining Authority makes us of expressions like 'your followers', 'your men' workers belonging to your union' without given any specified names, how is the detenu expected to make an effective representation against such charges save and except by making a bald denial of the same. 28. In Ground No. 16 which related to a factory known as K.R. Steel Pvt. Ltd., the detenu was alleged to have again made an attempt to infiltrate his union into the said factory and resorted to the familiar pressure tactics of 'go-slow' policy. 28. In Ground No. 16 which related to a factory known as K.R. Steel Pvt. Ltd., the detenu was alleged to have again made an attempt to infiltrate his union into the said factory and resorted to the familiar pressure tactics of 'go-slow' policy. In Incident No. (i) appended to that ground it has been stated :--- 'Following your obvious advice so openly given on 12-5-1981 the workers defeated the tyres of the car of the Commercial Manager, entered the office of the Personal Manager and manhandled him, with the result that the management was forced to close the operations of the factory till 16-5-1981'. In respect of this incident it has not even been stated that the workers belonged to the union of the detenu. In the report (Exhibit No. 105) so far as this incident is concerned, there is no mention thereof and all that is stated is that there was an amicable settlement between the management and the workers. 28. Another example of a vague and ambiguous ground is furnished by Ground No. 17 which concerns a Company known as Buyer India Ltd. It is stated in this ground that on 5-6-1981, ten to fifteen workers of Bayer Co. controlled by the union headed by the detenu went to the residence of one Bauskar, the Administraive Manager of that company at Dombivali in his absence and met his wife and threatened her that they would murder the said Bauskar and dispose of his body in such a way that she would not be able to set her eyes on it. This had a terrible psychological effect on the lady and also on the neighbours living in the area who had heard of the episode. The document relied upon in this case is the F.I.R. lodged by one Usha Bauskar. If this F.I.R. (Exhibit No. 106) the lady complained that about five or six persons came and stood near the gallery next to her window. One of them was a bearded person who asked her whether her husband was at home. When she replied in the negative that person asked her as to where her husband had gone. When the complainant told the bearded person that she did not know where her husband was, those persons asked her where her husband was roaming when the company was closed and there was a lock out. When she replied in the negative that person asked her as to where her husband had gone. When the complainant told the bearded person that she did not know where her husband was, those persons asked her where her husband was roaming when the company was closed and there was a lock out. She then informed those persons that she did not know the whereabouts of her husband. Two of the persons then told her that she would see her husband in pieces. The complainant stated that these persons appeared to be marathi people and were young. On the basis of this F.I.R, it is difficult to see how any one could come to the conclusion that these men belonged to a labour union controlled by the detenu. 29. In all the incidents narrated above, it will be seen that bald statements like 'your followers', 'your men' and 'workers controlled by you' were used without the slightest basis for coming to this conclusion. If the grounds are ambiguous to the extent to which all the incidents narrated above are, then it would be difficult for the detenu to make any effective representation against the grounds of detention. In the above incidents no nexus had been established as between the detenu and the assailants or perpetrators of the violent activities mentioned in the various incidents. 30. I shall now discuss and deal with four such incidents, which do not form part of pattern sought to be established and which is the second reason, why I consider the order of detention to be vitiated. The first of such incident is Ground No. 1, Incident No. (iv) which was in relation to a worker of M/s. Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd. It is stated in the said incident that on 8-1-1981 at 13.15 hrs. Ramnarayan Sarojee, 'a followers of your union' was found with a Rampuri knife by Head Constable M.S. Patil of Wagle Estate Police Station. He was charge-sheeted under section 37(1) read with section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The document relied upon in this incident is Exh. No. 26 which was the F.I.R. given by H.C. Patil, in which the N.C. stated that a prohibitory order under section 27(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act had been promulgated by the District Magistrate. He was charge-sheeted under section 37(1) read with section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The document relied upon in this incident is Exh. No. 26 which was the F.I.R. given by H.C. Patil, in which the N.C. stated that a prohibitory order under section 27(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act had been promulgated by the District Magistrate. The Head Constables then stated that on seeing him patrolling, the accused person started running away from the place near Rubber Products Co. Since suspicion was arosed he was chased and caught. Apart from the fact that Exhibit No. 26 furnished no clue to the fact that the said Sarojee was a follower of the union belonging to the detenu, it is difficult to understand how the possession of a Rampuri knife by a workers could establish the pattern which the Detaining Authority sought to establish in the grounds. This incidents, therefore, is totally extraneous to the pattern sought to be established by the Detaining Authority. 31. The next incident concerns the company known as Voltas Ltd. in the ground which has been marked as No. 5. In Incident No. (i) appended to this ground it has been stated that on 18-3-1981 one V.J. Naik belonging to the detenu's union abused and assaulted the Security Officer and in this connection one N.C. was recorded at Vartaknagar Police Station. The extract of N.C. which was furnished to the detenu was marked as Exhibit No. 48. On a perusal of this exhibit it is noticed that an innocuous incident had occurred in the canteen involving the canteen manager and the said Naik. It appears that the said Naik tried to steel some tomatoes from the canteen. The canteen manager apprehended him and questioned him. The Security Officer had also intervened in the quarrel between the two. This incident is totally unconnected with the pattern sought to be established by the Detaining Authority and further it is an incident which has no nexus with the detenu. 32. The next incident is incident No. (iii) to Ground No. 5 involving the same company i.e. Voltas Ltd. In this it is stated that on 25-5-1981 'your followers' abused and threatened Sunder Badrinath Yadav, a supervisor of the factory who lodged his N.C. complaint. The N.C. complaint has been marked as Exh. No. 50. 32. The next incident is incident No. (iii) to Ground No. 5 involving the same company i.e. Voltas Ltd. In this it is stated that on 25-5-1981 'your followers' abused and threatened Sunder Badrinath Yadav, a supervisor of the factory who lodged his N.C. complaint. The N.C. complaint has been marked as Exh. No. 50. This also is an incident which is so innocuous that it cannot be stated that it had any connection with the pattern of tactics of infiltration and recognition of a union within a factory. As in the previous incident, this incident is also a stray incident of abuse and threats given by one worker to a supervision or a canteen manager of the factory. 33. The above instances would go to show that there are certain incidents mentioned in the grounds which are totally unconnected with the general pattern sought to be established in the grounds by the Detaining Authority. At this stage it will be pertinent to cite the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of (Anil Dev v. State of West Bengal)25, reported in A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 832, wherein the learned Judge were pleased to lay down :--- "Of course, the veil of subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority cannot be lifted by the courts with a view to appreciate its objective sufficiency. Nevertheless, the opinion of the officer must be honest and real, and not so fanciful or imaginary that on the facts alleged no rational individual will entertain the opinion necessary to justify detention. So also if the grounds relied on have nothing to do with the prejudicial purposes stipulated in the statute, no nexus exists and the order is bad. Even if the incident attributed to the detenu has some connection with the obnoxious activities, it should not be too trivial in substance nor too stale in point of time as to snap the rational link that must exist between the vicious episode and the prejudicial activity sought to be interdicted." On a perusal of the various incidents stated above, the conclusion is evitable that several of the incidents are completely vague and no nexus has been established as between the detenu and the activities complained of or the perpetrators thereof. There are several incidents which are totally unconnected with the pattern which has been formulated in the grounds i.e. of detenu's attempt to infilterate his union in several industrial establishments. 35. At the end of the grounds, the Detaining Authority has annexed an epilogue which is the genesis of the pattern of behaviour indulged in by the detenu. In this paragraph (which has not been numbered) it is stated :--- "From the above narrative of events that have followed your entry into 18 industrial units in the limits of the Thane Police Commissioner it is abundantly clear that there is a definite pattern in your tactics which disturb public order. Every time you attempted to dislodged the recognised union, you do so by openly flouting the labour laws and demanding direct and immediate recognition from the management. To that end you encouraged your followers to indulge in violent and lawless activities like threats, assaults, rioting, damage to persons and property and even murder ......... The extent of violence is such and the forms it has taken so alarming and the area covered so vast and the population affected so great that public order has inevitably been disturbed by the frequent and repeated cases of assault and intimation by your associates with your active support and encouragement". 36. On a perusal of the various grounds and the incidents annexed thereto, it is difficult to find any material or basis on which the Detaining Authority could have come to the conclusion that it was the detenu who had encouraged his followers or could have given active support in their violent and criminal activities. I am, therefore, of the view the grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 17 are totally irrelevant and bear no connection with the detenu. To that extent they vitiate the order of detention. The incidents mentioned in grounds 2, 5 and 8 are stray incidents which have no connection whatsoever with the pattern sought to be established in the grounds by the Detaining Authority. This also would vitiate the order of detention. 37. To that extent they vitiate the order of detention. The incidents mentioned in grounds 2, 5 and 8 are stray incidents which have no connection whatsoever with the pattern sought to be established in the grounds by the Detaining Authority. This also would vitiate the order of detention. 37. In view of the fact that I have come to the conclusion that the grounds are vitiated by the vices of irrelevance and vagueness, I do not think it necessary to deal with the third ground relating to the Press Conference in which the Chief Minister is alleged to have made certain observations in respect of the detenu, thereby breaching his representation. 38. Finally it needs to be stated that we are all-too-aware that as a consequence of our decision we shall be unleashing upon an unsuspecting populace a person who, we are informed, has come to pose a serious threat to the industrial peace of this city and the State. That indeed is unfortunate. But, hard cases cannot be permitted to make bad laws. We can do no better than to repeat in ringing tones the never-to-be-forgotten words of Justice Frank further, "The history of personal liberty is largely the history of insistance on observance of procedure. And observance of procedure has been the bastian against want on assaults on personal liberty over the years". Meticulous adherence of procedure established by law is the only safeguard of personal freedom. 39. The order of detention, therefore, cannot be sustained. ORDER 40. In the result the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). The order of detention is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case. 41. Writ to be directed to the Superintendent, Bombay Central Prison, Arthur Road, Bombay. 42. The oral application made for leave to appeal to Supreme Court is rejected. 43. Oral application for stay made by the lea3rned P.P. is also rejected. Order of detention set aside. -----