JUDGMENT I.P. Singh, J. - Suresh Mishra petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the detention order dated 13-7-1984 passed by District Magistrate, Kanpur city (hereinafter referred to as the detaining authority) under S. 3(2) of the National Security Act (No. 65 of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides and are of the opinion that for the disposal of the present writ petition, we need not refer to all the facts disclosed in the writ petition or to consider them for the reason that this petition can be decided on two short points to be discussed hereinafter. 3. Learned counsel for the detenu has argued that the detaining authority in. arriving at his subjective satisfaction was in the first place influenced by extraneous matter, which was not communicated to the detenu to enable him to submit an effective representation against the detention order, and secondly that an important and vital material which could have influenced the mind of the detaining authority, in forming his subjective satisfaction was kept back by the authorities concerned, who were under an obligation to place them before the detaining authority. It is argued that the detention order was passed mechanically without applying the mind to arrive at the subjective satisfaction, requisite for passing the detention order. 4. It is pointed out that ground No. 2 relates to an incident taking place in the night of 22/23-9-83 with respect to which crime case No. 271/83 under S. 394, IPC was registered. In para 16 of the writ petition, while referring to the said crime case No. 271/83, it was alleged that though the detenu was named in the said F.I.R. yet his parentage and residence was not disclosed and as a matter of fact, was said to have been made ba-parda. However, the detenu was never put up for identification. It is argued that in this background there was no material before the detaining authority to connect the detenu with this crime and in this perspective this ground will become non-existent so far as the detention of the detenu is concerned. However, the detenu was never put up for identification. It is argued that in this background there was no material before the detaining authority to connect the detenu with this crime and in this perspective this ground will become non-existent so far as the detention of the detenu is concerned. However, it is argued that all these facts have not been controverted by the detaining authority in his counter-affidavit. Para 16 of the petition has been replied in para 17 of the counter-affidavit, but its perusal makes it clear that the above referred to facts of the petition were not rebutted in the counter- affidavit, meaning thereby that those facts stood admitted. 5. The grievance of the learned counsel for the detenu is that the detaining authority while taking this incident into consideration and connecting it with the detenu appears to have been influenced by the report of the. Station-Officer, which contained proposal for passing the detention order against the detenu. As a matter of fact in para 17 of the counter- affidavit it is admitted that the proposal was put forward in the report of the Station Officer. Evidently then it appears that the name of the detenu was linked with the above mentioned incident in the said report and if the detaining authority interpreted the said incident as an activity of the detenu, then it could only be done on the basis of the report of the Station Officer. A copy of the report of the Station Officer was not supplied to the detenu. Accordingly the detaining authority while forming his subjective satisfaction was influenced by an extraneous matter. This was also not supplied to the detenu disabling him from making an effective representation against the said detention order. It is further pointed out that in connection with the said incident i.e. in crime case No. 271/83 some property was said to be recovered from the detenu and his companions. A watch was put up for identification but it was not picked up by any witness. The grievance of the learned counsel for the detenu is that this fact was kept back from the detaining authority by the police authorities concerned and its non- consideration was bound to influence the subjective satisfaction which was arrived at by the detaining authority. A watch was put up for identification but it was not picked up by any witness. The grievance of the learned counsel for the detenu is that this fact was kept back from the detaining authority by the police authorities concerned and its non- consideration was bound to influence the subjective satisfaction which was arrived at by the detaining authority. It is argued that, had this fact been 'placed before the detaining authority his subjective satisfaction might have been otherwise. In para 17 of the counter- affidavit filed by the detaining authority it is clearly stated that he was not made aware of the facts that the recovered watch had been put up for identification on 19-9-1983. In the said para, the detaining authority has further stated that "deponent is certain that the watch was not identified by the witnesses as is now being asserted by the Police, viz. due to the pressure of the accused persons" (Emphasis supplied).' If the said fact was not brought to the knowledge of the detaining authority at the time the detention order was passed on 13-7-1984, but was supplied to the detaining authority at the time he returned his counter- affidavit on 9-10-1984, evidently, then this material fact, which in the circumstances of the case, is vital fact, was kept back from the detaining authority by the Police Officials concerned, whose duty it was to post the detaining authority with all the facts. It was held in the case of Syed Mohammad Aslam v. State of U.P., 1985 All LJ 196 : "In a case of detention under S. 3 though the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority cannot be examined its validity can be questioned on a variety of grounds. The ground that a material or a document which had the potentiality of affecting the decision of detaining authority while passing the detention order was suppressed from him is a ground which can be taken into consideration by the Court as a relevant fact. The ground that a material or a document which had the potentiality of affecting the decision of detaining authority while passing the detention order was suppressed from him is a ground which can be taken into consideration by the Court as a relevant fact. If a document is relevant to the question on which the detaining authority had to base his subjective satisfaction and such a document is in existence on the date of the detention order within the knowledge of the reporting authority, the reporting authority is under a duty to place that document before the detaining authority and non-compliance of such a duty would invalidate that order." In case of Nanha Singh v. Superintendent, District Jail, Kanpur, 1984 All LJ 898 it was held: "The validity of order for preventive detention passed by the detaining authority can inter alia be questioned on the ground that the same has been passed without consideration of material circumstances and which in the circumstances of the case, ought to have been placed before the detaining authority and considered by it." 6. Thus the detention order gets vitiated. The continued detention in pursuance of that order cannot be upheld. 7. As a result, we allow the writ petition and direct the respondents not to detain Suresh Mishra, petitioner (detenu) any more in pursuance of the impugned order dated 13-7-1984, passed by District. Magistrate, Kanpur City. 8. We make it clear that the order, which we have passed today will not entitle the detenu to his physical release, if he is wanted in any other matter or can be lawfully detained in pursuance of any other lawful order.