I. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) ANIL Kumar Singh alias Black Tiger petitioner (hereinafter referred to as detenu) has presented this Habeas Corpus writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution to challenge his detention under the detention Order dt 4-9-1984, passed by District Magistrate, Varanasi under S. 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (No. 65 of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a View to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. ( 2 ) THE detenu was arrested on 24-7-84. He was served with the detention order dated 4-9-84 in District Jail, Varasansi on that very day. The grounds of detention were also served on him simultaneously. Those grounds are three in number. Their English translation is as follows: -1. On 26-4-84 at 8. p. m. one Shital Prasad Gaur son of late Narootam was sitting at Mohan Medical Stores, in Mohalla Lanka, reading news paper. The detenu fired his katta at him with intention of killing him and actually injured him. Crime case No. 102/84, under section 307/506, IPC was registered against the detenu. It was further mentioned therein that Mohalla Lanka is at short distance from Kashi Hindu Vishva Vidhalaya and sufficient crowd stayed in the locality till 8. 30 p. m. The said activity of the detenu created tension, terror and fear in the locality and disturbed the public order. 2. On 17-7-1984 Sri Ganesh Chandra Jaiswal was sitting on his Gaddi in Mohalla Ganjgam bari, where money lending business was carried on. The detenu along with his companions arrived there. On the point of pistols and knives committed robbery. Crime case No. 127/84 under section 394/397, IPC was registered against the detenu. It was further mentioned that during investigation, it was brought to light that the above occurrence of 17-7-84 was committed by the detenu and his three companions wherein a sum of Rs. 27,000/- was robbed. The above activity created sense of fear, tension and terror in the above locality and disturbed the public order. ( 3 ) ON 24-7-84 on receiving information about the presence of detenu with an illicit arm at Ahilyabai Ghat, the police arrived there at about 4. 00 a. m. to arrest the detenu. 27,000/- was robbed. The above activity created sense of fear, tension and terror in the above locality and disturbed the public order. ( 3 ) ON 24-7-84 on receiving information about the presence of detenu with an illicit arm at Ahilyabai Ghat, the police arrived there at about 4. 00 a. m. to arrest the detenu. On becoming aware of the police party, the detenu prompted his companion Vijai by saying Simultaneously, the detenu fired at the police party with the intention of killing them, but they had a providential escape. The police party managed to arrest the detenu on the spot. Two crime. . cases No. 135, under S. 307, IPC and number 36, under S. 25, Arms Act were registered against the detenu. It was alleged that the above activity of the detenu terrified the persons present at the Ghat and they all ran helter-skelter into the adjoining Galis. Public order was disturbed. LEARNED counsel for the detenu has challenged the above three grounds on different scores. Regarding the first ground, it is pointed out that the FIR of Criminal case No. 102/84, under Ss. 307/506, I P C which was supplied to him is annexure F. It is pointed out that its perusal indicates that it relates to an incident of 17-7-1984 taking place at 8. 30 P. M. It is, therefore, argued that the said FIR is not related to the incident of 26-4-84 at 8 P. M. as detailed in ground No. 1. With the result that the said ground has no material to base on. ( 4 ) THE perusal of the said FIR annexure F does indicate that at the bottom the maker of the FIR namely Shitla Prasad of Shital Medical Stores, Lanka, Varanasi had signed the said report as 26-6-84. It also shows that its scribe Narendra Verma had also signed it as 26-6-84 (as opposed to 26-4-1984 ). ( 5 ) IN the counter-affidavit of the District Magistrate, it is explained in para 6 that "it may be stated that mention of 26-4-1984 was a typing mistake" No explanation is there with respect to the date 26-6-1984 appearing twice at the bottom of the said FIR. Again there is no explanation regarding the difference in the timings of the occurrence. In the ground it is 8 P. M. whiles in the FIR it is 8. Again there is no explanation regarding the difference in the timings of the occurrence. In the ground it is 8 P. M. whiles in the FIR it is 8. 30 P. M. In this background ground No. 1, which is said to relate to the incident of 26-4-1984 becomes non existent. ( 6 ) AS regards ground No. 2 concerning the robbery incident of 17-7-84, the relevant FIR is annexure K with respect to crime case No. 127/84, under Ss. 394/397, IPC. It does not name any of the four miscreants. So the detenu was not named in the said FIR. It is mentioned in the ground as seen above that his identity was fixed, as a result of investigation that followed. Learned counsel for the detenu has argued that in connection with this ground, no document except the said FIR annexure k was supplied to the detenu. The District Magistrate in para 7 of his counter-affidavit has deposed that every single material on which the deponent had placed reliance had been furnished to the detenu. No specific assertion is made in the said counter-affidavit that any document other than the FIR concerned (annexure K) was supplied to the detenu in connection with ground No. 2. It is, therefore, obvious that there was no material before the District Magistrate in connection with the said incident of robbery dated 17-7-1984, reported in FIR annexure k, whereby, it could be ascertained that the detenu was one of the persons engaged in that activity. If this ground was the basis for the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate then as the material before him did not implicate the detenu so this, ground, too, was based on irrelevant and vague material. ( 7 ) GROUND No. 3 is with regard to the activity of 24-7-1984, which was carried out at 4 A. M. at the bank of Ahilya Bai Ghat, wherein the detenu is said to have opened fire at the police party with the intention of killing the police personnel and in which he was arrested. It is alleged that it created terror in the public present at the Ghat, with the result that they all ran helter-skelter into adjoining Galies. It is alleged that it created terror in the public present at the Ghat, with the result that they all ran helter-skelter into adjoining Galies. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, the learned counsel for the detenu points out that in para 2 of his petition, he has alleged that in fact the detenu had been arrested on 23-7-84 at about 9 A. M. at Godauliya crossing in the city of Varanasi and in this connection the father of the detenu namely Kallan Singh had sent a telegram to the District Magistrate Varanasi and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, vide photo-stat copy of the telegram dated 23-7-84 annexurea. The argument is that if the detenu had already been arrested on 23-7- 1984, then ground No. 3 which relates to the incident of 24-7-1984 would become non-existent. ( 9 ) THE District Magistrate in para 3 of his counter-affidavit has not denied the existence or receipt of the said telegram dated 23-7-84 Annexure a to the petition. He has tried to explain that it was sent as a "pesh bandi" and in fact he was arrested on 24-7-1984 at 4. 00 A. M. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the detenu has pointed out that the said telegram which had been received by the District Magistrate was a relevant material to be considered in connection with said ground No. 3. However, this relevant material, which could have a probative value in arriving at subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate was not considered and this fact would render the detention order invalid. ( 11 ) THE same view was taken in 1984 All LJ 898, Nanha Singh v. Supdt. District Jail, Kanpur, in which it was held that "the validity of an 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, which in the circumstances of the case ought to have been placed before the detaining authority and considered by it". ( 12 ) IN the case of Syed Mohammad Aslam v. State of U. P. , 1985 All LJ 196, it was observed that:"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. ( 12 ) IN the case of Syed Mohammad Aslam v. State of U. P. , 1985 All LJ 196, it was observed that:"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. 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. " ( 13 ) AS a result, the detention order in question is invalid. The continued detention of the detenu also cannot be upheld. ( 14 ) THE habeas corpus petition is allowed. The Respondents are directed not to detain Anil Kumar Singh alias Black Tiger petitioner (detenu) any more in pursuance of the detention order dt. 4-9-1984 passed by District Magistrate, Varanasi. ( 15 ) IT is made clear that the detenu will not be entitled to his physical release, if he can be detained in pursuance of another lawful order or is wanted otherwise. Petition allowed. .