JUDGMENT : P.C. Misra, J. - In this case orders have already been passed on 31-1-1984 in Court directing the release of the petitioner The reasoned judgment has not been passed on that date and it was indicated in the said order that it would follow in separate sheet. The reasoned judgment is as follows:- This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of writ of habeas corpus and directing release of the petitioner from detention. The petitioner is a resident of the town of Khurda in the district of Puri. One F.I.R was lodged on 13-11-1983 in the Khurda Town Police Station by one Madan Gopal Agarwal against the petitioner in pursuance to which a case under sections 326/323/506, I.P.C. was registered as G.R. Case No. 563 of 1983 in the court of the S.D.J.M. Khurda. The petitioner moved this Court in Cr. Misc. Case No. 860 of 1983 for anticipatory bail and by order dated 17-12-1983 passed by this Court it was directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested until further orders till the records are made available to the Court. The petitioner was, however, detained on 18-12-1983 under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 by orders of the District Magistrate, Puri dated 12-12-1983 a copy of which has been annexed to the writ application as Annexure-1. The District Magistrate, Puri purports to have passed the said order under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act for detention of the petitioner in Khurda Sub-Jail until further orders with a view to event the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. Soon thereafter the petitioner was communicated the grounds on which the order has been made in compliance of the provisions of section 8(1) of the Act. A copy of the said communication has been annexed to the writ application as Annexure-2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the order of detention under Annexure-1 on various grounds and has prayed for his release by issue of a writ of habeas corpus. 2. The opp. parties namely the District Magistrate, Puri, State of Orissa represented through Secretary, Home Department and the Jailor, Khurda entered appearance through the counsel for the State and a counter affidavit on behalf of the opp. party No. 1 has been filed. 2. The opp. parties namely the District Magistrate, Puri, State of Orissa represented through Secretary, Home Department and the Jailor, Khurda entered appearance through the counsel for the State and a counter affidavit on behalf of the opp. party No. 1 has been filed. 3. There is no dispute that the District Magistrate, Puri has been authorised in Government of Orissa, Home Department Order No. 3601/C, dated 31-10-1983 to exercise the power conferred by sub-section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. The scheme of the Act as expressed under section 3 thereof clearly indicates that the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate must be deemed to be the order of the State Government. The said order of the District Magistrate (Annexure-1) discloses that the detention of the petitioner is necessary 8th a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In the communication made thereafter the compliance of section 8 (1) of the Act. It has been stated that the petitioner on 13-11-1983 at about 7.30 p.m. in the evening, when one Mahabir Prasad Ram was repairing his car ORC No. 8858 in front of the shop situated on the main road of the town, came wrapped with a sheet of cloth from the traffic stand and stood near the said car. After reaching near the car, the petitioner brought out a large knife and assaulted the said Mahabir Prasad Ram causing some injuries at the shoulder and the little finger of the left hand. The persons who were present there (named in the Annexure-2) offered resistance at which the petitioner waived his knife and shouted that he would kill any body coining near him. It has also been stated that on account of the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner the people who happened to be passing by that road ran away. The shop-keepers of the shops in the bazar closed their shops and for some time the traffic was also stopped. It has been further stated in Annexure-2 that due to the said activities of the petitioner the safety of the public has been in danger and the normal life of the citizens have been paralysed. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 8 of the Act substantially reproduce provisions of clauses (5) and (6) of Article 22 of the Constitution. It has been further stated in Annexure-2 that due to the said activities of the petitioner the safety of the public has been in danger and the normal life of the citizens have been paralysed. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 8 of the Act substantially reproduce provisions of clauses (5) and (6) of Article 22 of the Constitution. It is incumbent on the part of the detaining authorities to communicate the grounds of detention subject to the limitation that the facts and particulars, the disclosure of which such authorities consider to be against the public interest may be withheld. It is not the case of the opposite parties that besides the facts that were communicated to the petitioner under Annexure-2 any other facts were withheld being disclosed in the public interest. But in the counter affidavit it has been stated in paragraph 7 that besides the case in which the petitioner has been detained under the National Security Act there are a number of criminal cases registered against the detenu in which finally reports were submitted because no witnesses came forward to give evidence being afraid of him. It has also been stated that inspite of being booked in a series of cases for his anti social activities nothing has deterred him from his chosen path of prejudicial activities in a peace loving society. It has been said that there was no other alternative than taking recourse to the provisions of special law to curb the petitioners anti-social activities for the maintenance of public order and tranquillity. 4. It is, therefore, clear from the counter affidavit filed in this case that even though in Annexure-2 solitary instance was said to be the ground of detention, the counter affidavit enumerates various other grounds for which the recourse to the National Security Act was taken by the authorities empowered under the Act. In a decision reported in Khudiram Das v. The State of West Bengal and Others AIR 1975 S.C. 550 their Lordships considered the case of preventive detention under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. In that context their Lordships have examined the scope of the provisions contained in clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution. In that context their Lordships have examined the scope of the provisions contained in clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution. In the opinion of their Lordships the grounds under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution mean all the basic facts and materials which have been taken into account by the detaining authority in making the order of detention. It has been laid down 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. As already stated the provisions in section 8 of the Act substantially reproduce the provisions of clauses (5) and (6) of the Article 22 of the Constitution. Therefore, the same interpretation as was made of the provisions of Article 22 clauses (5) and (6) is available to be made so far as section 8 of the Act is concerned. The privilege of sub-section (2) of section 8 as also in clause (6) of Article 22 of the Constitution should be sparingly exercised only then it is considered by the detaining authority to be in the public interest. From the counter affidavit of the detaining authority it is seen that the facts that there were a number of criminal cases against the detenu and that he had been booked series of anti-social activities, were taken into consideration for detention of the petitioner in exercise of the powers under section 3 of the Act. The communication made to the detenu under section 8 of the Act does not disclose all the basic facts on which the order of detention was based. Consequently the detenu been deprived of making a proper representation. If any of grounds which weighed with the detaining authority before sing order of detention, have not been communicated under section 8 of the Act, the detention order must be held to be invalid. In such event, it is not possible to assess as to in what manner the said undisclosed grounds weighed with the authorities and contributed to provide the satisfaction that was necessary to detain the detenu with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 5. In such event, it is not possible to assess as to in what manner the said undisclosed grounds weighed with the authorities and contributed to provide the satisfaction that was necessary to detain the detenu with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 5. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution does not function as an appellate authority and is not called upon to decide the correctness of the allegations made against the petitioner. Its duty is to see as to whether the safeguards afforded by sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Act have been fairly and strictly observed. If the basic facts which were relied upon for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority had not been furnished to the detenu, the order of detention is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 6. In the conclusion, we are of the view that Annexure-1 is bad in law and is hereby quashed. G.B. Patnaik, J. - I agree. Final Result : Allowed