JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J. - By these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution Mohd. Yunus (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 14102 of 1982) and Mumtaj Hussain alias Laddan (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 14102 of 1982) question the validity of their detention in pursuance of District Magistrate, Moradabad's orders dated 10th Oct. 1982 made under S. 3 (3) of the National Security Act. 2. Since the two orders directing detention of the petitioners have been made in similar circumstances and on similar grounds and their validity has also been questioned on similar grounds, it would be convenient to dispose of both these petitions by a common judgment. 3. Both Mohd. Yunus and Mumtaj Hussain were arrested on 6th Oct. in connection with case under S. 302, I. P. C. District Magistrate, Moradabad, exercising the powers under S. 3 (3) of the National Security Act, passed orders directing the detention of the two petitioners in the district jail, Moradabad on 10th Oct. 1982. The orders authorising the detention of the petitioners as well as the grounds on which the said orders had been made were served upon the petitioners on 11th Oct. 1982. Both the petitioners submitted almost identical representations against their detention for consideration of the State Government on 20th Oct. 1982. In due course, after obtaining the report of the Superintendent of Police, the District Magistrate forwarded the two representations to the State Government on 21st Oct. 1982. The State Government received the said representations on 23rd Oct. 1982 and forwarded the relevant papers along with the representations made by the two petitioners to the Advisory Board on 25th Oct. 1982. Even though the State Government had forwarded the representations made by the two petitioners to the Advisory Board on 25th Oct 1982, it after considering the same rejected it on 29th Oct. 1982. In due course the opinion of the Advisory Board was received on 22nd Nov. 1982 and the State Government confirmed the orders for petitioners' detention on 2nd Dec. 1982. The petitioners then filed these two petitions on 13th Dec. 1982 questioning the validity, of their detention on a variety of grounds. 4. After notice of these two petitions issued the District Magistrate, Moradabad and the State of Uttar Pradesh counter-affidavits justifying the detention of the two petitioners. 1982. The petitioners then filed these two petitions on 13th Dec. 1982 questioning the validity, of their detention on a variety of grounds. 4. After notice of these two petitions issued the District Magistrate, Moradabad and the State of Uttar Pradesh counter-affidavits justifying the detention of the two petitioners. The petitioners have also filed rejoinder affidavits reiterating the stand taken by them in the petitions filed by them. However in view of the affidavits exchanged between the parties, Sri Yogesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners confined his challenge with regard to the validity of their detention to following grounds alone : 1. All the material which had been taken into consideration by the District Magistrate for arriving at the requisite satisfaction and making the orders for detention of the two petitioners has not been made available to then. This has resulted in denial of an effective opportunity to the two petitioners to make representations and in contravention of the provisions contained in Article 22 (5) of the Constitution; 2. The grounds supplied to the petitioners are vague and are also based on irrelevant consideration; 3. The District Magistrate has passed the two orders directing petitioners detention in a mechanical manner and without applying his mind independently; and 4. Action of the District Magistrate in passing the orders for petitioners' detention is mala fide and discriminatory; 5. The grounds for detention of the two petitioners which were served upon them on 11th of Oct. 1982 have been annexed as Annex.-2 to their respective petitions. In substance the averments made therein were as follows : "Jama Masjid area of Moradabad city is an extremely sensitive area. In this area one dead body was discovered on 20th Sept. 1982 and another dead body was discovered on 21st Sept. 1982. This created a tension in the entire city. On 25th Sept. 1982 one Ram Bharose son of Pauwa resident of Mohalla Barwalan had disappeared, as a result of aforesaid incidents Baqrid was celebrated in the city on 28th Sept. 1982 in extremely tense atmosphere." On 29th Sept. 1982 some Hindu boys attacked two Muslims at about 10.30 a. m. near the Ramganga Bridge. Out of the two Muslims who were attacked. Qaim Uddin died at the spot and the other. Nisar Hussain was seriously injured. 1982 in extremely tense atmosphere." On 29th Sept. 1982 some Hindu boys attacked two Muslims at about 10.30 a. m. near the Ramganga Bridge. Out of the two Muslims who were attacked. Qaim Uddin died at the spot and the other. Nisar Hussain was seriously injured. As it was being said that Hindus had killed two Muslims and had left their dead bodies at the back of Jama Masjid and had also killed a Mulla, Mohd. Yunus, Mumtaj Hussain alias Laddan. Dr. Athar, Dr. Asif and 13 others (names specified), fired by communal passions hatched a scheme for taking revenge and killing Hindus. At about 6 p.m. Dr. Athar brought Kuldev photographer in front of the narrow lane near the Masjid whereupon Usman, one of the companions of Mohd. Yunus and Mumtaj Hussain dragged Kuldev photographer inside the lane. Subsequently Mumtaj brought a gunny bag from inside his house and after putting the dead body of Kuldev in that sack placed it on a four-wheel thela belonging to Wahid, carried it to a sewer manhole near Bhistiwali Masjid via the road to the grave-yard and dumped the same there. The dead body of Kuldev was recovered on 4th Oct. 1982 and in this connection Crime Case No. 463/82 under Sections 302/201, I. P. C. had been registered against the respective petitioners and was under investigation. In this way the action of the two petitioners in being fired by communal passions and killing a Hindu with a view to take revenge has created an atmosphere of fear, tension and sensation in the city of Moradabad. Specially it has generated a feeling of revenge in the Hindu community resulting in the closure of Schools and workshops in the city for two days. Their action had thus adversely affected the public order. On the aforementioned basis the the District Magistrate was satisfied that the petitioners were likely to act in such a manner that was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that it was necessary to detain them with a view to prevent them from acting in such a manner." The endorsement made at the end of the grounds indicated that following documents had been supplied to the petitioners as the material relied upon by the District Magistrate in support of the ,,rounds for which he had directed petitioners detention 1. Report of Sub-inspector In-charge. Police Station Mughalpura dated 6th Oct. Report of Sub-inspector In-charge. Police Station Mughalpura dated 6th Oct. 1982. 2. Copy of the. report No. 36 dated 5th Oct. 1982 at 22 O'clock in the general Diary, Police Station Mughalpura. 3. Copy of report No: 2 dated 6th Oct. 1982 at 13.15 O'clock General Diary Police Station Mughalpura. 4. Copy of report No. 41 dated 5th Oct. 1982 at 23.30 O'clock General Diary Police Station Mughalpura. The copies of the said documents have been filed as Annexures to the respective petitions. 6. As pointed by the Supreme Court in the case of Dhananjoy Das v. District Magistrate, AIR 1982 SC 1315 , the law is by now well settled that a detenu has two rights under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution : 1. To be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds on which the order of detention is made, that is, the grounds which led to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, and 2. to be afforded the earlier opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention, that is to be furnished with sufficient particulars to enable him to make a representation which on being considered may obtain relief to him. The inclusion of an irrelevant or non-existent ground, among other relevant grounds is an infringement of the first of the rights and the inclusion of an obscure and vague ground among other clear and definite grounds is an infringement of the second of the rights. Therefore, in this view of the legal position, if the grounds are vague and indefinite that would amount to an infringement of the second right of the detenu. It is by virtue of the second right that the detaining authority has to supply the material facts on the basis of which subjective satisfaction was derived for passing the order of detention and this is how the facts from which the inference is drawn also become a part and parcel of grounds. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners for questioning the validity of their detention will accordingly have to be considered in the light of the aforementioned observations made by the Supreme Court. 7. Learned counsel for the two petitioners urged that according to the averments made in the grounds for their detention some Hindu boys had on 29th Sept. 7. Learned counsel for the two petitioners urged that according to the averments made in the grounds for their detention some Hindu boys had on 29th Sept. 1982 at about 10.30 a.m. attacked two Muslims near the Ramganga bridge out of whom Qaim Uddin died at the spot and the other, Nisar Hussain, was seriously injured. Various documents supplied to the petitioners merely indicate that there was material before the District Magistrate to indicate that on 29th Sept., 1982 some Hindu boys had killed one Mulla near Katghar bridge and it was thereafter that the alleged scheme to kill Hindus had been hatched. There is. no whisper in that material about any person being seriously injured in that incident much less Nisar Hussain being so injured, as had been mentioned in the grounds served upon the petitioners. He, therefore, contended that the fact about Nisar Hussain's injury mentioned in the grounds must have been gathered from material other than that supplied to the petitioners and as that material has neither been indicated nor furnished to the petitioners, the petitioners have been denied of an opportunity to make an effective representation, rendering their detention invalid. Learned counsel then went on to argue that in case, as alleged by the District Magistrate in his counter-affidavit, the only material on which the District Magistrate came to be satisfied about the likelihood of the petitioners indulging in an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order was contained in the four documents mentioned at the foot of the grounds served upon the petitioners, the statement that Nisar Hussain was seriously injured on 29th Sept. 1982 was based on no material whatsoever and in any case it disclosed non-application of independent mind by the District Magistrate. 8. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents could not bring to our notice anything contained in the four documents mentioned in the grounds served upon the petitioners which could indicate to the District Magistrate that on 29th Sept. 1982 some Hindu boys had caused serious injuries to one Nisar Hussain. Learned Government Advocate, however, contended that the fact that Nisar Hussain is said to have been injured on 29th Sept. 1982 was not a fact on which the satisfaction of the District Magistrate that the petitioners were likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, was based. Learned Government Advocate, however, contended that the fact that Nisar Hussain is said to have been injured on 29th Sept. 1982 was not a fact on which the satisfaction of the District Magistrate that the petitioners were likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, was based. The non-supply of material in respect thereof has accordingly not 'prevented the petitioners from making an effective representation and no question of contravention of the provisions of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution rendering petitioners' detention invalid arises. 9. It is obvious that the word `ground' under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution means clear revelation of all basic facts and other materials which are taken into consideration by the detaining authority for coming to the conclusion that the detenu was likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In the case of Dhananjoy Das v. District Magistrate, AIR 1982 SC 1315 observed thus (Paras 7 & 8) : "Be that as it may, the observations referred to above do not indicate that there can be no preamble or introductory para in the grounds of detention. There is no bar to have introductory paragraphs in the grounds. The observations only mean all allegations of facts which have led to the passing of the order of detention will form part of the grounds of detention. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the contention that there could be no introductory para in the grounds. Where a particular paragraph in the grounds amounts only to a preamble or introduction is to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case and it is open to the Court to come to its own conclusion whether that paragraph is only an introductory para or contains the grounds on the basis of which the detaining authority had the subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention." These observations, in our opinion, clearly indicate that everything mentioned in the grounds for detention may not necessarily he the basis or the grounds for the satisfaction of the detaining authority that the detenu was likely to act in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order. It will, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, depend upon the circumstances and facts of each case as to whether a particular recital contained in the grounds served on the petitioner was or was not a ground or the basis on which the requisite satisfaction of the detaining authority was based. 10. In case after construing the recitals contained in Annex.-2 served upon the petitioners, we come to the conclusion that the fact that Nisar Hussain had been seriously injured on 29th Sept. 1982 was not a recital on the basis of which the conclusion that the petitioners were likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order was based, non-supply of the material in respect of the said averment would not have the effect of denying an effective opportunity to the petitioners to make their representations as contemplated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution. 11. A careful perusal of Annex.-2 (grounds for detention) served on each of the two petitioners shows that the satisfaction of the District Magistrate that the petitioners were likely to act in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order was based on following basic facts : 1. Serious communal tension had been prevailing in the city of Moradabad. 2. The two petitioners along with Dr. Athar, Dr. Asif and 13 others thought that earlier Hindus had killed two Muslims and had thrown their dead bodies at the back of Jama Masjid and they had also killed one mulla. 3. Their communal passion was accordingly aroused and with a view to take revenge and kill Hindus they hatched plot in pursuance of which Dr. Athar brought Kuldev photographer in front of the narrow lane near the Masjid at about 6 p. m. whereupon Usman dragged him inside the lane and thereafter the dead body of Kuldev was thrown in a manhole near Bhistiwali Masjid. 12. Needless to say that the four documents supplied to the petitioners contained material in respect of each of the aforementioned basic facts. The fact that Nisar Hussain was seriously injured by some Hindu boys in the morning of 29th Sept. 12. Needless to say that the four documents supplied to the petitioners contained material in respect of each of the aforementioned basic facts. The fact that Nisar Hussain was seriously injured by some Hindu boys in the morning of 29th Sept. 1982 was not mentioned as a basis for coming to the conclusion that the petitioners were likely to act in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order but that fact was stated, merely in support of the inference that lot of communal tension was prevailing in the city of Moradabad. A perusal of the representations made by the two petitioners which have been filed as Annex.-3 to their respective petitions indicates that although the petitioners had denied that there was any communal tension prevailing in the city of Moradabad at the time of celebration of Baqrid, they seem to admit therein that a communal tension did prevail in the city of Moradabad but then it was because of certain objectionable activities of sub-Inspector Dharamvir Singh. In view of the fact that the petitioners did not dispute that in fact communal tension prevailed in the city of Moradabad, the non-supply of the material with regard to the injuries said to have been sustained by Nisar Hussain loses all significance and cannot be said to have prevented the petitioners from making an effective representation. We are accordingly of opinion that as injuries of Nisar Hussain were not mentioned in Annex.-2 as a basic fact for District Magistrate's satisfaction that the petitioners were likely to act in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order it was not in fact a ground for petitioners' detention and non-supply of any material in respect thereof does not vitiate the same. 13. As stated earlier, the documents supplied to the petitioners contained material in respect of all the basic facts on which the District Magistrate had recorded his satisfaction that the petitioners were likely to act in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order. The order does not stand vitiated merely because the material in respect of the Nisar Hussain's injury had not been supplied to the petitioners. It also follows that the order of detention was neither based on any irrelevant material nor was it made as a result of non-application of mind as claimed by the petitioners. 14. The order does not stand vitiated merely because the material in respect of the Nisar Hussain's injury had not been supplied to the petitioners. It also follows that the order of detention was neither based on any irrelevant material nor was it made as a result of non-application of mind as claimed by the petitioners. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that in the grounds for petitioners' detention it had been mentioned that Kuldev's dead body had been recovered on 4th Oct. 1982. Annex. RA 1 filed along with the rejoinder affidavit in Writ Petition No. 14102 of 1982 is an extract of report No. 6 made at 2.30 p. m. on 5th Oct. 1982 in the general diary of the police Station which indicates that on receipt of certain information a dead body was recovered from a gutter of a nala at Bakh Lal crossing. He contended that it means that the dead body of Kuldev photographer had been recovered on 5th Oct. 1982 and not on 4th Oct. 1982 as alleged in the grounds for petitioners' detention. This also shows casual or non-application of mind by the District Magistrate at the time of passing the orders of petitioners' detention. We are unable to accept this submission. There is nothing in Annex.RA 1 to the rejoinder affidavit mentioned above to show that the body which was shown to have been recovered on 5th Oct. 1982 vide G. D. Report No. 6 was the dead body of Kuldev Photographer. The report made by the Sub-Inspector-in-charge, Police Station Mughalpura to the Superintendent of Police which was supplied to the petitioner and which has been filed by the petitioners themselves clearly mentioned that the dead body of Kuldev had been recovered on 4th Oct. 1982 and that vide report No. 41 dated 5th Oct. 1982 (copy supplied to the two petitioners) the post-mortem examination report in respect of Kuldev's dead body had been recived at the police station on 5th of Oct. 1982. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the material before the District Magistrate did not indicate that Kuldev's dead body had been recovered on 4th Oct. 1982 or that there had been a casual or nun-application of mind by the district Magistrate while passing the detention orders against the two petitioners. 15. 1982. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the material before the District Magistrate did not indicate that Kuldev's dead body had been recovered on 4th Oct. 1982 or that there had been a casual or nun-application of mind by the district Magistrate while passing the detention orders against the two petitioners. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners next contended that the recital contained in the grounds for detention that some Hindu boys had at about 10.30 a. m. attacked two Muslims near the Ramganga bridge as a result of which one Qaim Uddin died at the spot and Nisar Hussain was seriously injured are vague inasmuch as the particulars of the Hindu boys had not been mentioned therein. Apart from the fact that, as pointed out above, such recital was not the basis on which the District Magistrate was satisfied that the petitioners were likely to act in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order and as such it was not a ground for petitioner's detention, we are unable to agree that the averment that on 29th Sept. 1982 some Hindu Boys attacked two Muslims near the Ramganga bridge suffers from any vagueness. 16. Learned counsel for the two petitioners next contended that the material on which the District Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioners were likely to act in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order, indicated in this regard, the two petitioners and Dr. Athar and Dr. Asif equally. However, while directing the two petitioners to be detained, the District Magistrate did not pass any such order in respect of Dr. Athar and Dr. Asif. Action of the District Magistrate was thus on the face of it discriminatory and mala fide. 17. Case of the District Magistrate in this regard as disclosed in his counter affidavit is that even though names of Dr. Athar and Dr. Asif appeared in the report, they were not accused but were witnesses. Considering, however, the averments contained in the grounds for the detention supplied to the petitioners, it is difficult to accept that Dr. Athar and Dr. Asif had not been accused of committing offences similar to that of which the two petitioners were accused. Athar and Dr. Asif appeared in the report, they were not accused but were witnesses. Considering, however, the averments contained in the grounds for the detention supplied to the petitioners, it is difficult to accept that Dr. Athar and Dr. Asif had not been accused of committing offences similar to that of which the two petitioners were accused. But then the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate with regard to the two petitioners based on relevant material, in our opinion, cannot be vitiated merely because the District Magistrate, even if under some misconception, was not so satisfied with regard to some other persons. Nothing has been brought out in the petitions to show that the District Magistrate had any animus against the two petitioners. In the circumstances merely because the District Magistrate did not feel that it was not necessary to detain Dr. Athar and Dr. Asif, it does not mean that his action was either mala fide or that he deliberately acted in a discriminatory manner. 18. In the result, we do not find any merit in any of the submissions made by the petitioners for challenging the order dated 10th of Oct. 1982 passed by the District Magistrate, Moradabad under S. 3 (3) of the National Security Act. 19. The petition. therefore, fail and are dismissed.