P. S. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition dated 1/2. 9. 1983 under Article 226 of tire Constitution of India Babu Ali petitioner (hereinafter) referred to as the detenu) impugns the validity of his detention authorised under order dated 30. 10. 1982 passed by the District Magistrate. Moradabad in exercise of his powers under Section 3 (3) of the National Security Act 1980 (Act No. 65 of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2 ) ON 21st September, 1982 Sri Dharam Vir Singh, Station Officer, Police Station Moghalpura District Moradabad lodged a first information report in connection with offence under Sections 141/353/153-A of the, Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment. Act. The detenu (Petitioner Babu son of Niyamat) was one of the persons, who was said to have committed the said offence. ( 3 ) THE detention order against the detenu was passed on 30. 10. 1982. It was confirmed by the State Government on 8. 11. 1982. The report of approval of the detention order together with the grounds of detention and other particulars were forwarded to Central Government on the same date i. e. 8. 11. 1982. The detenu was arrested under Section 25 Arms Act on 13. 8. 1982 and lodged in District Jail, Moradabad on 14. 8. 1983. The order of detention alongwith the grounds thereof were served on him on 16. 8. 1983. He made the representation on 9. 9. 1983 which alongwith the comments of the District Magistrate were received in confidential Section 6 of the State Government on 17. 9. 1983 alongwith the covering letter dated 14/17. 9. 1983. The said representation was directly sent by the District Magistrate to the Advisory Board on 14/17. 9. 1983. The had also sent a representation addressed to the Secretary to Home Department, Government of India alongwith his representation dated 9. 9. 1983. The representation meant for Central Government was sent there on 20. 9. 1983 for consideration. The State Government had referred the case of the detenu to the Advisory Board on 18. 9. 1983. On that very date the Central Government was also informed that the detenu was detained in the District Jail, Moradabad since 14. 8. 1983. The representation dated 9. 9. 1983 was examined by the confidential section and a detailed note was put up on 19. 9. 1983. 9. 1983. On that very date the Central Government was also informed that the detenu was detained in the District Jail, Moradabad since 14. 8. 1983. The representation dated 9. 9. 1983 was examined by the confidential section and a detailed note was put up on 19. 9. 1983. The Joint Secretary Home and the Home Secretary examined the said representation on 20. 9. 1983, and it was finally rejected by the Honble Chief Minister on 22. 9. 1983. The intimation of rejection was sent both to District Magistrate, Moradabad and Superintendent District Jail, Moradabad on the some day. The Advisory Board fixed 27. 9. 1983 as the date for hearing of the detenus case. ( 4 ) THE grounds of detention which formed the basis of the District - Magistrates satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order referred to only one incident which was described as follows: On 20th September, 1982 dead body of Qamaruddin was found lying on the bank of Ram Ganga behind Jama Masjid in the city of Moradabad. The discovery of the body caused on atmosphere of distrust, fear and tension in the entire city. Again on the morning of 21st September 1962 dead body of Haji Khalil Ahmad was found lying behind Jama Masjid. A crowd of about 700-80u which included the detenu (petitioner) gathered near the dead body and prevented the police from preparing the inquest report. With great difficulty the police could manage to move the dead body to Jama Masjid from where it wanted to take it on a jeep to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. However, the detenu (petitioner) alongwith his companions Mohd. Fahim, Sultan Husain, Ahsan, Abdul, Salim Pahelwan, Mukhtar alias Mukhtr, Muslim and other Mohammedans present on the spot forcibly carried the boy to the house of Haji Khalil in Mohalla Peerjada. In the way the petitioner was shouting all this is the work of Hindus, we will take the revenge. "for each life we will take ten lives. Thus the detenu (petitioner) had by forcibly taking away the dead body from the police and raising aforementioned slogan in fused feeling of hatred and revenge amongst the Muslims. Such activity of the petitioner created a feeling of fear, terror and tension, in the entire city. "for each life we will take ten lives. Thus the detenu (petitioner) had by forcibly taking away the dead body from the police and raising aforementioned slogan in fused feeling of hatred and revenge amongst the Muslims. Such activity of the petitioner created a feeling of fear, terror and tension, in the entire city. In connection with this incident crime case No 246/82 under Sections 147/353/153 - A Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act had been registered against him. Report of the Local Intelligence Unit dated 22nd September 1982 mentioned about aforementioned activity of the detenu (petitioner) which had prejudicially affected the maintenance of public order. ( 5 ) IN the petition there are several grounds, on which the detention of the detenu is challenged by the detenu. But it is not necessary to refer to all those grounds. Since there are a few grounds, to be discussed below, which in our opinion are fatal to the continued detention of the detenu and it will be sufficient if we confine our attention to only those grounds. 1. The detention order dated 30. 10. 1982 was passed with long delay after the incidents in question dated 20. 9. 19r2 and 21. 9. 1982 with the result that the chain of action between the dangerous activities relied on and the detention order passed was snapped and thereby the detention order was vitiated. 2. The grounds of detention do not contain full material which influenced the District Magistrate in passing the impugned detention order. In particular the extra material contained in the Station Officers report dated 12. 10 1982 (apart from the incident of 21. 9. 1982) is not mentioned in the grounds and, therefore, the petitioners right of making a representation against the detention order is seriously prejudiced. For this reason the detention order is said to be vitiated. 3. Extra material contained in the report of the Station Officer dated 12. 10. 1982 is too general and vague and as a matter of fact refers to non-existing facts and as such the detention order stands vitiated. ( 6 ) RE first ground it is obvious that the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu make it clear that even the Local Intelligence Unit had brought the incident of 21. 9. 1982 to the notice of District Magistrate on 22. 9. ( 6 ) RE first ground it is obvious that the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu make it clear that even the Local Intelligence Unit had brought the incident of 21. 9. 1982 to the notice of District Magistrate on 22. 9. 1982 yet the detention order was passed on 30:10. 1982 after a lapse of period of about five weeks. On this point reference with advantage be made to the following decisions: Ravindra Kumar Ghosel v. The State of West Bengal in which it was held to the effect that the purpose and object of the Act (Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971) is that the persons, who are likely to impel public order are not allowed to be free to indulge in this dangerous activity. The chain of action between the dangerous activities relied on and the detention order passed is snapped by the long and unexplained delay of about three months. It was further observed therein that if there was some tenable explanation for this gap the court would have been reluctant to interfere with the detention order but no explanation was given in the counter affidavit. ( 7 ) TO the same effect are the decisions Smt. Hemlata Kanti Lal Shah v. The State of Maharashtra, Sk. Abdul Munnaf v. The State of West Bengal. ( 8 ) THE law, therefore, on this point is that the delay ipso facto in passing an order of detention after an incident is not fatal to the detention of a person, for in certain cases delay may be unavoidable and reasonable. What is required by law is that the delay must be satisfactorily explained by the detaining authority Sri B. B. Sinha, the then District Magistrate, Moradabad, who had passed the impugned detention order has in paragraph 11 of his affidavit counter stated. A perusal of the material furnished to the detenu would indicate that the Inspector Incharge of the police station deemed it necessary to inform on 21. 9 1982 itself the fact relating to the incident to Dy. S. P. The Dy. S. P. in turn on 27. 9. 82 reported fact to the Senior Superintendent of Police. However in the meantime the Festival of Id-ul-Zuha intervened and the entire time of the police and the district administration was diverted to maintlin strict vigil in the District. Thereafter on 12. 10. S. P. The Dy. S. P. in turn on 27. 9. 82 reported fact to the Senior Superintendent of Police. However in the meantime the Festival of Id-ul-Zuha intervened and the entire time of the police and the district administration was diverted to maintlin strict vigil in the District. Thereafter on 12. 10. 1982 the Inspector Incharge of Police Station again requested the C. O. City to initiate action against the petitioner as his activities were likely to affect the maintenance of public order. The C. O. City examined the matter and requested the Senior Superintendent of Police to consider this matter. Thereafter the Senior Superintendent of Police deemed it necessary that the matter of the petitioner should be referred to the deponent for consideration whether be may be detained under the National Security Act or not. This was done on 13. 10. 1982. However, it appears that the proposed action against the petitioner some how leaked out. Consequently the deponent was approached by some, respectable persons who wanted to assure the deponent that the petitioner was in fact not involved in the case. The deponent consequently postponed the passing of the order of detention against the petitioner at that time. The deponent rang. up to the Senior Superintendent, of Police and requested the Senior Superintendent of Police to look in the matter personally and report to the deponent whether any allegations, against the petitioner were correct or not. It was on or about. 30. 10. 1982 that the Senior Superintendent of Police rang up the deponent and told him that there was absolutely no doubt about the participation of the petitioner in the activities assigned to him. The deponent consequently again looked into the allegations against the petitioner and on the basis of the activities noted in the ground of detention the deponent deemed it proper to pass the order of detention against the petitioner. ( 9 ) ON going through the above explanation of the District Magistrate we do not feel convinced about its sufficiency. We are unable to appreciate that festival of Id-ul-Zuha would have the effect of diverting the entire time (between 21/27-9-1982 and 12-10-1982) and efforts of the police and the district administration to maintain strict vigil in, the district. ( 9 ) ON going through the above explanation of the District Magistrate we do not feel convinced about its sufficiency. We are unable to appreciate that festival of Id-ul-Zuha would have the effect of diverting the entire time (between 21/27-9-1982 and 12-10-1982) and efforts of the police and the district administration to maintain strict vigil in, the district. If the detention of the detenu had become necessary after 21-9-1982 in the interest of maintaining public order then his detention would have been part and parcel of the strict vigilt referred to above and in the circumstance it was expected that the detention order which was passed on 30-10-1982 would have been actually passed soon after 21/27-9-1982. The delay, in passing the impugned detention order, in the circumstances of the case, does not stand explained by any reasonable explanation. In our view the said detention order stands vitiated on this ground. ( 10 ) AS regards grounds Nos. 2 and 3, it will be seen from the discussion under point No. 1 above that the District Magistrate in his counter affidavit while trying to explain the delay in passing the detention order stated that on 12-10-1962 the Inspector In-charge of the police station again requested the C. O. City to initiate action against the petitioner as his activities were likely to affect the maintenance of the public order. The impugned detention order was subsequently passed on 30-10-1982. The contention raised on behalf of detenu in connection with these grounds is that the District Magistrate at the time of passing the impugned detention order was surely influenced by the said report dated 12-10-1982, yet that was not made the ground of detention because the ground supplied (Annexure- 6) does not make any reference to the said report. It is further contended that the copy of that report dated 12-10-1982 was not supplied to the detenu with the result that he was deprived of making an effective representation. It is argued that this deprivation was in violation of the constitutional safe-guard provided Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India of affording him the earliest opportunity of making representation against the order of detention. ( 11 ) THE said report dated 12-10-1982 (Annexure-7) is by the same Sri Dharamvir Singh, Station Officer of Police Station Moghalpura. It is argued that this deprivation was in violation of the constitutional safe-guard provided Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India of affording him the earliest opportunity of making representation against the order of detention. ( 11 ) THE said report dated 12-10-1982 (Annexure-7) is by the same Sri Dharamvir Singh, Station Officer of Police Station Moghalpura. District Moradabad and is to the following effect:babu son of Niyamat resident of Mohalla Katar Shaheed police station Gui Shaheed, District Moradabad aged 35 years had from his childhood gone out of control of his parents. In order to meet his increased expenses he started associations with bad characters, so much so that he adopted the course of Gundagardi and marpit to terrorise the members of the public. He was communal minded person and had been inciting Muslims against the persons belonging to other religions. He had actually taken part in the communal riots of Moradabad in the year 1980. However, due to his fear and terror no one had made any report against him. He had after creating terror in the city of Moradabad indulged in the activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and all that was through his Gundagardi. After describing the above antecedents of the detenu the said report dated 12-10-1982 made a reference to the incident of 2 1-9. 1982 and in the end it was also mentioned that the Local Intelligence Unit had also submitted a report dated 22-9-1982 to that effect. Lastly it was pointedly mentioned that, Babu detenu was not only responsible to disturb the public order on 21. 9-82 but was always on the look out for an opportunity to indulge in activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order. Disclosing the above facts a prayer was made in the said report to pass the appropriate order directing the detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. ( 12 ) IT is obvious that this report dated 12-10-1982 had gone a long way to influence the District Magistrate in forming his subjective satisfaction about the need of detaining the detenu by passing the impugned detention order. Admittedly the subject matter contained in the said report dated 12-10-1982 was not made the ground 9f detention as is evident from Annexure-7. Here reference be made to Mohd. Admittedly the subject matter contained in the said report dated 12-10-1982 was not made the ground 9f detention as is evident from Annexure-7. Here reference be made to Mohd. Dhana All Khan v. State of West Bengal in which it was observed that if the District Magistrate passing the order of detention had before him not only the ground served on the petitioner but other materials also the order suffers from a very serious infirmity which goes to the root of the matter. In other words if the District Magistrate had materials before him which could form the basis of grounds more than one but does not formulate all grounds then the detention order would stand vitiated. This is not because the detaining authority passing the detention order stood influenced by the certain material on the record about which no specific ground was made and which in the ultimate analysis would amount to depriving the detenu from making an effective representation to the order of detention. ( 13 ) WHEN the contents of the said report dated 12-10-1982 were not included in the grounds of detention then it follows that supply of its copy to the detenu was not considered necessary by the detaining authority. In this connection reference with effect be made to the following decision - Khudi Ram Das v. State of West Bengal (supra) in which it was observed that grounds under Article 22 (5) of the constitution of India mean all the basic facts and materials which have been taken into account by the detaining authority in making the order. If detention and on which, therefore, the order of detention is based. ( 14 ) IT was further observed that nothing less than all the basic facts and materials which influenced the detaining authority in making the order of detention must be communicated to the detenu. ( 15 ) IT was further observed that the detenu shall be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention. No avoidable delay, no short fall in the materials communicated shall stand in the way of the detenu in making an earlier, yet comprehensive, and effective representation in regard to all basic facts and materials which may have influenced detaining authority for making the order of detention depriving him of his freedom. No avoidable delay, no short fall in the materials communicated shall stand in the way of the detenu in making an earlier, yet comprehensive, and effective representation in regard to all basic facts and materials which may have influenced detaining authority for making the order of detention depriving him of his freedom. ( 16 ) IN our opinion as already observed above, the facts mentioned in the said report dated 12- 10-82 had gone a long way in influencing the detaining, authority in forming his subjective - satisfaction in passing the impugned detention order. Accordingly it was incumbent upon him to make the copy of the said report available to the detenu. In not doing so the detenu was deprived of his statutory right to make at the earliest an effective representation against the detention; ( 17 ) IN this connection the statement of the detaining authority Shri B. B. Sinha, the then District Magistrate, Moradabad made in paragraph 10 of his counter affidavit seems to be very relevant;. . The deponent has been advised to state that genuinely any of the, grounds taken in sub- paragraphs are in fact no ground to render the order of detention bad in any manner. However, to be specific in reply to sub-clauses (i) and (ii) and subsequent paragraphs (A), (B) and (C) of paras 10 and 11 of the petition it is stated that the satisfaction of the deponent was based not only on -the version contained in the report but on all the materials that have been furnisher to the detenus The clear picture emerges from the perusal of the ground itself. Since the other allegations against the petitioner were of a very general nature without any specific material in support thereof the deponent did not deem it proper to place reliance on the same and the deponent confined his satisfaction on the one specific allegations against the petitioner which in the opinion of the deponent was sufficient to warrant his detention under the National Security Act. ( 18 ) THE above quote also makes it clear that apart from the first information report dated 21-9- 82 (Annexure-8) which was made the ground of detention as mentioned in Annexure-6 some other material (which in the circumstances of the case) none other than the said report dated 12-10-82, was before the detaining authority at the time of passing the impugned order. However, the detaining authority in his above mentioned quote appears to state that since the other allegations (contained in the said report dated 12-10-82 against the petitioner were of very general nature without any specific material in support thereof so he did not place reliance on them and had confined his satisfaction on the specific allegations against the petitioner (contained in the said first information report dated 2 1-9-82) which was sufficient to detain the detenu under the National Security Act. Thus, on his own showing the allegations contained in the said report dated 12-10-82 were of very general nature which conveys that they were vague. He also made it clear that there was no specific material in support of those allegations and that is why he did not deem it proper to place reliance on them. But as already mentioned above, in our opinion, these allegations contained in the said report dated 12-110-82 bad in fact influenced the detaining authority in passing the impugned detention order. Since there was no specific material in support thereof, no reliance could have been placed on them by the detaining authority in forming the subjective satisfaction. ( 19 ) THE learned Government Advocate referred to John Martin v. The State of West Bengal, wherein it was observed that where the satisfaction of the District Magistrate as regards the necessity for detention of the petitioner was grounded on a reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of the petitioner based on his past conduct, mainly, participation in. the two incidents set out in the grounds of detention, judged in the light of the surrounding circumstances the order of detention cannot be said to be invalid. ( 20 ) THERE can be no dispute regarding the above proposition of law. But reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of the petitioner based on his past conduct, namely, participation in the past incidents should, be made a specific ground of detention and the material for that ground should be supplied to the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation against that. In the present case this mode does not appear to have been adopted. ( 21 ) WE are, therefore, of the opinion that there is much force in grounds Nos. 2 and 3 taken on behalf of detenu and on that basis also the impugned detention, order is rendered void. In the present case this mode does not appear to have been adopted. ( 21 ) WE are, therefore, of the opinion that there is much force in grounds Nos. 2 and 3 taken on behalf of detenu and on that basis also the impugned detention, order is rendered void. ( 22 ) WE, therefore, allow the petition and direct the opposite parties to set the detenu at liberty forthwith unless wanted in any other matter. Petition allowed.