JUDGMENT I.P. Singh, J. - Santosh Kumar alias Mausmi, petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu') has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the validity of the detention order dated 17-7-1984 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur City, (hereinafter referred to as detaining authority) passed under S. 3(2) of the National Security Act (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 learned counsel for both the parties 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 writ petition can be disposed of on two short points discussed below : 3. Learned counsel for the detenu has contended that the detaining authority in arriving at the subjective satisfaction was influenced by extraneous matter which was also 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 detaining authority in forming his subjective satisfaction was kept back by the authorities concerned, who were under an obligation to place it 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 2 relates to an incident taking place in the night between 22/23rd September, 1983 with respect to crime case No. 271 of 1983 under S. 394 I.P.C. In Paragraph 20 of the writ petition while referring to the said crime case No. 271 of 1983, it was alleged that though the detenu was named in the said F. I. R, yet his parentage and residence were not disclosed and, as a matter of fact, was said to have been made 'Baparda' and even then 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 became non-existent so far as the detention of the detenu was concerned. 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 became non-existent so far as the detention of the detenu was concerned. It is further pointed out that all those facts which were alleged by the detenu were not controverted by the detaining authority in his counter-affidavit. Paragraph 20 of the writ petition was replied to in Paragraph 16 of the counter-affidavit of the detaining authority. It is significant to note that the above-mentioned facts of the petition were not rebutted with the result that those facts stood admitted. In this way the F. I. R. could not and did not connect the detenu with the above activity. 5. Learned counsel for the detenu has argued that the detaining authority in connecting the detenu with the above activity appears to have been influenced by the report of the Station Officer of the concerned Police Station which contained proposal for passing the detention order against the detenu. Paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit does refer to the said proposal which was moved praying for the detention of the detenu. There is also reference to the police report in Paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit. However, the detaining authority in said Paragraph 10 has mentioned that though the police report contained prices of the activities of the petitioner yet he did not choose to rely upon the said police report but had relied upon the main material documents for forming his subjective satisfaction. He added that all the said material on the basis of which the detention order was passed, were furnished to the detenu. It follows that copy of the said police report was not furnished to the detenu. It has been seen above that the identity of the detenu in the absence of his parentage and residence could not be fixed merely by disclosing the name. Obviously then the identity of the detenu appears to have been taken by the detaining authority from the police report. In this background, the said police report had influenced the mind of the detaining authority in forming his subjective satisfaction against the detenu. Since the copy of the said police report was not supplied to the detenu, it amounts to taking into consideration extraneous matter in forming his subjective satisfaction, rendering the detention order illegal. 6. In this background, the said police report had influenced the mind of the detaining authority in forming his subjective satisfaction against the detenu. Since the copy of the said police report was not supplied to the detenu, it amounts to taking into consideration extraneous matter in forming his subjective satisfaction, rendering the detention order illegal. 6. It was further pointed out in Para 20 of the writ petition that in connection with the said incident i.e. crime case No. 271 of 1983, some property, that is, a watch and some cash, was also allegedly recovered from the detenu and his companions and the said watch was put up for identification but it was not picked up by any of the witnesses. It is argued 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 arrived at by the detaining authority. In Para 16 of the counter-affidavit the detaining authority had admitted that the said fact about the identification proceedings was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority at the time of passing of the detention order, He further stated that at the time of filing the counter-affidavit he was informed that the witnesses had not identified watch due to fear of the accused persons. The argument is that the result of the identification proceedings concerning the watch in question was a vital and most relevant material for consideration and it cannot be said that if this fact was placed before the detaining authority and considered by him, how the same would have influenced the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. It could as well be that the said consideration might have tilted the subjective satisfaction if favour of the detenu. At any rate, non-placing of the said material before the detaining authority has rendered the detention order illegal. It has been held in 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. It has been held in 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. 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 duty would invalidate that order." In case of Nanha Singh v. Supdt., District Jail, Kanpur 1984 All LJ 898, it was held that (Para 16): 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." 7. We have, thus, no doubt in our mind that the detention order is invalid. Therefore, the continued detention of the detenu in pursuance of the said order cannot be upheld. 8. As a result, we allow the writ petition and direct the respondents not to detain the detenu, Santosh Kumar alias Mausmi, any more in pursuance of the impugned detention order dated 17-7-1984 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur City. 9. We make it clear that the order passed by us 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.