Judgement DHARMADHIKARI, J.:-In this case, the detenu Dattaram Shivram Salvi is detained under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 by an order of detention dated 24th June, 1981. The said order of detention is challenged on various grounds. However, it is not necessary to make a detailed reference to the contentions raised and argued before us, because in our opinion, the detention order cannot be sustained since the incidents which formed grounds of detention are not only stale but are also irrelevant so far as the detenu Salvi is concerned. The incidents on which reliance is placed by the Detaining authority read as follows: "(1) In Calico Company Factory, situated at Chembur, Labour Court (Sic) led by CITU was the recognised union. However, you along with your other office bearers, representing Maharashtra General Kamgar Union started agitation for recognition of your union from 27-9-1979 and ultimately the strike was resorted to by workers belonging to your union. This strike was declared illegal by the Industrial Court. In spite of this, the strike was continued by your union. During the agitation and strike period the offences were committed by you and other members of your union. (a) The management of the company had obtained injunction order from the Industrial Court preventing your union and its workers from staging demonstration in the factory premises and entering the staff quarters. However, from 20-10-1979 onwards the workers of your union started entering the prohibitory area, staging demonstration in violation of the injunction order. In this connection Chembur Police Station registered an offence under Section 143-447-149 I. P. C. vide Chembur Police Station C. R. No. 505/79 and you and some of your followers were arrested. (b) On 12-11-1979 at 1.35 p.m. or so, fire broke out in Calico Co. Factory due to leakage of P. V. C. gas from the pipe between the storage tank and plant structure. Investigation into this incident revealed that this was an act of sabotage by you and other workers of your union. This act was so hazardous that the lives of the residents of the locality were in peril had not the fire being extinguished in time. In this connection Chembur Police Station registered an offence under Section 436-117-109 vide C. R. No. 553/79 and you along with 18 workers of your union were arrested. The said case is sub judice. (2) In Crompton Greaves Co. In this connection Chembur Police Station registered an offence under Section 436-117-109 vide C. R. No. 553/79 and you along with 18 workers of your union were arrested. The said case is sub judice. (2) In Crompton Greaves Co. Ltd. situated at Kanjur Marg Bhandup Greaves Cotton and Allied Companies Employees' Union (CITU) was the recognised union. The Maharashtra General Kamgar Union led by you and other office bearers of your union started enrolling workers for membership and caused an agitation for recognition of your union and for satisfaction of other demands. During the period of agitation the following offences were committed. (a) On 3-8-1980 at about 11.30 p. m. three workers of the company who were waiting at Kanjur Marg Railway Station for a train, after finishing the 2nd shift, were assaulted by some persons with knives. As a result of injuries sustained by these persons, M.D. Naket a worker of Crompton Greaves Ltd., died at Sion Hospital after admission. The other workers Shri Pandurang Janku Gadak and Ashok Shrikrishna Soman sustained injuries for which they were treated in Sion Hospital. In this connection a case under Section 302-326-324-34 I. P. C. was registered at Kurla Police Station vide C. R. No. 293/80. (b) On the same day i. e., on 3-8-1980 at about 8.45 p. m. four persons entered the house (at B-79, Government Servant's Colony, Bandra East) of Shri Prabhakar Krishna Sawant an employee of Cromption Greaves (sister concern of Greaves Cotton Co.) and a leader of Greaves Cotton Allied Companies Empolyees' Union and stabbed with knives his brother Udaykumar Sawant mistaking him as the said Prabhakar Krishna Sawant. The injured succumbed to the injuries on the spot. In this connection case under Section 302-34 I. P. C. was registered at Kherwadi Police Station vide C. R. No. 366/80. The above incidents were the outcome of the agitation led by you and your associates in your union." 2. It is an admitted position that so far as ground No. 2 relating to the incidents which took place in connection with the agitation in Crompton Greaves Company are concerned, the detenu was not even joined as an accused in the charge-sheet filed before the court. It is an admitted position that so far as ground No. 2 relating to the incidents which took place in connection with the agitation in Crompton Greaves Company are concerned, the detenu was not even joined as an accused in the charge-sheet filed before the court. Therefore, it can safely be said that with the said incidents detenu was not at all concerned and, therefore, so far as detention under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act is concerned, the said ground is wholly irrelevant. It is by now well settled that when an order is based on a cumulative effect of all the grounds of detention and when it is ultimately held that any one of them is either irrelevant or vague, then the order of detention as a whole is ab initio void and illegal, see Mohamed Yusuf v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1979 SC 1925 . 3. Once it is held that the incidents dated 3-8-1980 are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of detention, then the earlier incidents referred to in Ground No. 1 have no nexus with the detention order which is passed in June 1981, because on that basis alone it cannot be held that there was any live link for passing an order of detention under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980, in June 1981. To say the least, on the basis of such stale grounds no satisfaction could be arrived at as contemplated by. Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act. In the result, the petition will have to be allowed. Rule is made absolute and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith if not, required in any other case. Petition allowed.