I. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) ARUN Kumar Gupta petitioner (hereinafter referred to as detenu) has through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenged the validity of the detention order dated 16/8/1984 passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad, under section 3 (2) of the National Security Act. 1980 (Act No. 65 of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) detaining him with a view to prevent him from acting ill any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and his continued detention under the said order. ( 2 ) THE facts as appearing from the writ petition of the detenu, counter affidavit of Sri B. S. Lalli, the then District Magistrate, Allahabad, and counter affidavit of Sri Vishnu Sahai, Upper Division Assistant, U. P. Secretariate, Lucknow, are that on 6/9/1984 a F. I. R. for offences punishable under sections 307 Indian Penal Code and 4/5 Explosive Act was lodged at P. S. Colenelganj, Allahabad, by one Shirla Prasad against the detenu, Bharat Bhushan Verma, Lallu and Usman. The F. I. R. (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) indicates that the detenu and Bharat Bhushan Verma were arrested on the spot after a chase. The detenu was granted bail by Sessions Judge on 3. 8. 84 but before he could be released from jail he was served with a detention order dated 16-8-1984 in the jail. The grounds of detention (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) were also served on him the same day. The District Magistrate, i. e. , the detaining authority, in compliance of section 3 (4) of the Act submitted his report about the detention of the detenu along with the detention order, grounds of detention and other particulars having a bearing in the matter to the State Government which were received there on 17/8/1984. The State Government approved the detention order on 22/8/1984 (within 12 days of the detention order ). This approval was communicated to the District Magistrate on 25/8/1984. Simultaneously a report was submitted to the Central Government on that very day in compliance with the provisions of section 3 (5) of the Act. ( 3 ) THE detenu submitted his representation against the detention order on 5. 9. 1984 to the Superintendent, Central Jail Naini, Allahabad. This approval was communicated to the District Magistrate on 25/8/1984. Simultaneously a report was submitted to the Central Government on that very day in compliance with the provisions of section 3 (5) of the Act. ( 3 ) THE detenu submitted his representation against the detention order on 5. 9. 1984 to the Superintendent, Central Jail Naini, Allahabad. The said representation was received by the District Magistrate on 6/9/1984 and the same was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad that very day for comments thereupon. The Id-ul-Zuha fell on 7th and 8th September, 1984. The comments of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad, were sent to the District Magistrate on 11/9/1984. The District Magistrate sent the representation of the detenu along with his comments to the State Government on 19. 9. 1984 (after a gap of 8 days ). The said comments of the District Magistrate along with I the said representation of the detenu were received by the State Government on 20/9/1984. The section concerned in the Secretariat put up its more thereon on 22/9/1984 and thereafter the said representation was placed before the Advisory Board on 24/9/1984. ( 4 ) THE representation of the detenu, which was received by the State Government on 20/9/1984 was placed before the Joint Secretary in 25/9/1984 and then before the Home Secretary on 28/9/1984. It was rejected by the Chief secretary due to the non-availability of the Chief Minister, V. P. , on 1/10/1984. This fact of rejection was communicated to the Advisory Board as well as to the District Magistrate on 8/10/1984. Arun Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of U. P. IMPORTANT POINT Delay b y itself is not fatal. It is only the unexplained delay that is fatal. ( 5 ) THE Advisory Board decided the matter on 27. 9. 1984 and submitted its report and opinion which was received by the State Government on 30. 9. 1984. The matter was examined afresh by the State Government and as a result the detention order was confirmed by the Chief Secretary U. P. on 10. 10. 1984. This confirmation order was communicated to the detenu through the District Magistrate and Superintendent, Central Jail, Naini, on 16. 10. 1984. Learned counsel for the detenu has challenged the detention order and his continued detention on various in us grounds. 10. 1984. This confirmation order was communicated to the detenu through the District Magistrate and Superintendent, Central Jail, Naini, on 16. 10. 1984. Learned counsel for the detenu has challenged the detention order and his continued detention on various in us grounds. ( 6 ) IT is contended that the detention order was passed on the basis of a single incident as reported in the F. I. R. dated 6. 8. 1984 and it could not be regarded sufficient for tile purpose. It is now well settled law that this, Court in the exercise of its habeas corpus writ jurisdiction has not to go into the matter of sufficiency of material. It is the nature of the incident which alone is relevant. Even one incident may be sufficient to satisfy the detaining authority about the breach of public order. Even a solitary incident if it has a nexus with or is germaine to the disturbance and breach of public order then that alone would be sufficient for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority which satisfaction is supreme. (See 1984 A. L. J. 1271.) ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the detenu has laid stress on the point that the solitary incident considered and relied upon by the detaining authority only relates to the problem of law and order and not to the breach of public order. It would, therefore, be in the fitness of things to know the contents of the said solitary incident which was reported to the police through F. I. R. dated 6. 8. 1984 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition ). The English translation of that report lodged by Shitla Prasad Misra addressed to the Inspector, Police Station Colonelganj, Allahabad is as follows: The applicant (maker of the F. I. R.) was a copyist in the N. C. C. group head office, Allahabad. On 6. 8 1984 he was on his way from his office in connection With an official work to 10th Battalion N. C. C. Tagore town on a cycle. Just when he reached in front of the Law Faculty of the University of Allahabad at about 1. 30 noon he spotted four persons standing on the right side of the road. 8 1984 he was on his way from his office in connection With an official work to 10th Battalion N. C. C. Tagore town on a cycle. Just when he reached in front of the Law Faculty of the University of Allahabad at about 1. 30 noon he spotted four persons standing on the right side of the road. One of them with the intention to kill him threw a bomb- on him which hit him on the heel of his right foot but it did not blow up and fell on the ground. Immediately the same man picked up the said bomb and again threw it on him which struck the back port ion of his cycle. The bomb blew up. The noise of its blast attracted the police men from inside the compound of the Law Faculty. The said persons with a view to kill him had even fired at him with a Tamancha but they missed hitting him and he was saved. Thereafter all these four persons on two cycles escaped towards the bank road. Just then Jenga Jeep of the military police arrived there. The police and the applicant (Shitla Prasad) stopped that Jenga Jeep, boarded it, chased the cyclists and succeeded in stopping one cycle and arresting two of the miscreants who gave out their names as Arun Kumar Gupta (detenu) and Bharat Bhushan Verma. They also disclosed that their other two companions, who had decamped were named Lallu Yadav and Usman. The said persons had thrown the bomb on him and fired tamanchas on him with the intention of killing him. The search of the two arrested persons had yielded to the recovery of tamanchas and cartridges about which the police had prepared the necessary memos and sealed the recovered articles. It was further mentioned in the F. I. R. that the two arrested persons and the recovered articles were brought to the police station for necessary action. ( 8 ) THE argument of the learned counsel for the detenu is that the above incident merely presented a problem of law and order is not acceptable to us. It was further mentioned in the F. I. R. that the two arrested persons and the recovered articles were brought to the police station for necessary action. ( 8 ) THE argument of the learned counsel for the detenu is that the above incident merely presented a problem of law and order is not acceptable to us. There is a long string of decisions and to quote a few they are Arun Gosh v. State of West Bengal Ramaranjan Chaterjee v. State of West Bengal Wasiuddin Ahmad v. District Magistrate Aligarh U. P. and others Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration and others Ajai Dixit v. State of U. P. and others, in which the Jaw on tile subject Law and order and public order has been laid bare-thread to a point of almost settled law that there is no formula by which one case can be distinguished from another in discriminating between the law and order and public order. The act by itself is not determinants of its gravity. It is it, potentiality and its reach upon the society that matters It is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror Wave unleashed by a particular erruption of disorder that helps to distinguish it was an act affecting public order from that concerning law and order. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The impact of the detenu activity upon the local community is to be seen as to whether it has any effect on the normal flow of life of the community in the locality. It is the degree of disturbance and its effect upon the life of the community in a locality which determines whether the disturbance amounts only to a reach of law and order or public order. ( 9 ) THE counter affidavit of the District Magistrate reveals that the alleged incident had taken place on a highway just in front of the law faculty of the University of Allahabad and in it immediate vicinity the commerce faculty, the womens hostel, the official residence of Divisional Commissioner Allahabad and his court are situated. ( 10 ) VIEWED within the prospects of the above principle the potentiality of the incident in hand is to be judged. ( 10 ) VIEWED within the prospects of the above principle the potentiality of the incident in hand is to be judged. Needles to say that hurling of a bomb, which in the instant case was hurled twice, and firing of tamanchas on the road side during the middle of the day, apart from being a very grave matter in itself also has the potentiality to disturb the even tempo of life of the community. The said activity is sure to have the effect of disturbing the normal flow of life of the community in the locality. It has the potentiality to strike a terror wave in the locality. We have no reason to doubt that the incident in question has a nexus with the disturbance of public order. The detention order, therefore, cannot be struck down on the above plea raised on behalf of the detenu. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the detenu has argued that the said detention order stands vitiated on the ground that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the necessity to detain the detenu was based on no material. It is pointed out that the FIR in question (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) was the only material on the basis of which the said subjective satisfaction was arrived at. It was pointed out that the said FIR gives out that the activity in question was resorted to by four persons and only one of them was said to have hurled the bomb and the same person had lifted the unexploded bomb and hurled it second time. The point stressed is that the FIR does not pinpoint the said activity of hurling the bomb on any particular person. It is pointed out that in connection with the same activity another detention order of the same day was passed against Bharat Bhushan Verma (annexure SA 9), which while narrating the activity has mentioned that he (Bharat Bhushan Verma) along with his few companions stopped Shitla Prasad and then one of them (not specifying the name of that individual) with the intention of killing Shitla Prasad hurled a bomb at him which did not blast and the same unexploded bomb was again picked upon by his (Bharat Bhushan Verma) companion and again hurled upon Shitla Prasad. It is argued that the same detaining authority while relying upon the same FIR while passing the impugned detention order against the detenu had specifically mentioned in the grounds of detention (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) that the said bomb was hurled upon Shitla Prasad by the detenu and was picked up and hurled for the second time by the detenu. It is argued that the said FIR does not provide the material to indicate that the said particular activity of hurling bomb was performed particularly by the detenu. The argument is that it is apparent that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was very much influenced by the fact that the bomb was actually hurled by the detenu which fact in reality did not exist per allegations in the FIR. We feel satisfied that the said subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must have been influenced by the above mistaken fact and, therefore, it was based on a material which did not exist. The detention order in question being based on non-existent fact becomes invalid. A continued detention of the detenu under the said detention order, therefore, is not justified. ( 12 ) THE continued detention of the detenu was further challenged on the ground that the representation of the detenu dated 5. 9. 1984 was not disposed of by the State Government with all promptitude. In the decision of Pavitra N. Rana v. Union of India and others was held that the constitutional right to file a representation to the Government carries with it impliedly a right that the representation must be disposed of as quickly as possible and any unexplained delay would amount to a violation of the constitutional guarantee contained in Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. ( 13 ) THE facts, already narrated above in the beginning indicate that the District Magistrate had called for the comments of the Senior Superintendent of Police Allahabad, which were duly received by the District Magistrate on 11. 9. 84. The District Magistrate in his counter affidavit has stated that thereafter he had forwarded the said representation and his comments to the State Government on 19. 9. 84 (with a gap of eight days) It is argued that this delay in dealing with the representation of the detenu is fatal. However, it is well settled law that the delay by it is not fatal. 9. 84 (with a gap of eight days) It is argued that this delay in dealing with the representation of the detenu is fatal. However, it is well settled law that the delay by it is not fatal. It is only the unexplained delay that is fatal. The District Magistrate in his counter affidavit bas tried to explain the said delay of eight days by saying that during this period he was heavily preoccupied with administrative, law and order arrangements in connection with ensuing Dassehra and Moharram festivals. To our mind this explanation seems to be a vague one. No specific details and particular are disclosed by the District Magistrate which could indicate that these matters called for his immediate and continued attention for all these days on account of which he could not spare a moment to attend to the representation of the detenu. We are not satisfied with the above explanation. The District Magistrate is a very important limb of the State Government. The State Government has under section 3 (3) of the Act authorised the District Magistrate to exercise powers of the State Government in the matter of detaining persons as conferred under section 3 (2) of the Act The District Magistrate being the detaining authority it cannot be expected to treat the representation of the detenu with any laxity or in an indifferent manner. The unexplained delay of eight day on the part of the District Magistrate in merely forwarding the representation and his comments to the State Government cannot be looked upon with favour. That delay renders continued detention of the detenu invalid. ( 14 ) LEARNED counsel for the detenu has next pointed out that the counter affidavit of Sri Vishnu Sahai, Upper Division Assistant, V. P. Secretariat, Lucknow shows that the representation of the detenu dated 5. 9. 1984 along with the comments of the District Magistrate was received by the State Government on 20. 9. 1984 and it was placed before the Advisory board on 24/9/1984. It is argued that under section 10 of the Act the appropriate Government, i. e. the State Government in the present case, was required to place the grounds of detention and the representations, if any, made by the detenu before the Advisory Board within three weeks from the date of detention. It is argued that under section 10 of the Act the appropriate Government, i. e. the State Government in the present case, was required to place the grounds of detention and the representations, if any, made by the detenu before the Advisory Board within three weeks from the date of detention. It is pointed out that in the present case the date of detention is 16/8/1984 and the papers in question ought to have been placed before the Advisory board latest by 6/9/1984 whereas they were placed before the Advisory board on 24. 9,1984 and as such section 10 of the Act was not complied with which rendered the continued detention illegal. However, learned D. G. A. pointed out that the District Magistrate in his counter affidavit has stated that the representation of the detenu dated 5/9/1984 was received by him on 6. 9. 84. He produced before us the original record of the State Government which contained a letter dated 5/9/1984 written by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Naini, addressed to the State Government in which it was mentioned that the representation of the detenu was sent to the Advisory Board by him directly on 5/9/1984 through a special messenger. The said letter was received by the State Government on 6/9/1984 at Lucknow. It is argued that the Advisory Board is also situated at Lucknow and if the said letter could be delivered to the State Government on 6. 9. 1981 there is every probability and certainty that the representation of the detenu which was sent by the Jail authorities directly on 5/9/1984 by special messenger must have been received by the Advisory Board on 6/9/1984. The argument is that if the said representation had reached the Advisory Board on 6/9/1984 then if the second copy of the said representation through the State Government if reached the Advisory Board late, i. e. after the prescribed period of three weeks, it matters little. In the circumstances of the case if one copy of the representation dated 5 9. In the circumstances of the case if one copy of the representation dated 5 9. 1984 had reached the Advisory Board on 6/9/1984 then section 10 of the Act was complied with and the delay if any, in placing the second copy of the same representation before the Advisory Board would be immaterial, ( 15 ) AS a result of the above discussion the detention order in question and the continued detention of the detenu in pursuance of that detention order are invalid and illegal. The writ petition must succeed and is hereby allowed. The respondents are hereby directed not to detain Arun Kumar Gupta detenu any more in pursuance of the said detention order dated 16/8/1984 passed by the District Magistrate. Allahabad. ( 16 ) IT is, however, made clear that this release order will not entitle the detenu to be physically released if he is required to be detained in pursuance of other lawful order or if he is wanted in any other matter. Writ Petition allowed. .