K. N. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) BRIJBASI Pathak, the petitioner, has by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged validity of his continued detention. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is under detention in pursuance to an order passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad, dated 1. 10. 1984 issued in exercise of powers under section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as the Act as he was satisfied that the petitioners detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to public order on five different grounds. The grounds - mentioned therein are as follows: (1) That on 19. 7. 84 in the night at 9: 15 p. m. you along with your associates entered the house of Ravi. Shankar resident of village Chilbila, police station Meja and committed his murder. By your this act the village Chilbila was gripped with terror and the people were terrified which affected the public order adversely. A report of the incident was lodged at the police station by Vijai Shankar under sections 395/ 397, I. P. C. and a case was registered. During investigation the case was converted into 396, I. P. C. on 22. 7. 82; Chargesheet has been submitted to the Court which is pending trial before the Sessions Judge. (2) On 21. 9. 82 at 10. 00 a. m. Girja Shankar Shukla Station Officer, Police Station Meja, arrested you at Meja Road Bus Stand. On a search of your person, a country-made) 2 bore pistol and two cartridges were recovered. In connection with the incident crime No. 104/ 82 was registered and after investigation chargesheet was submitted against you to the Court but due to fear witnesses did not depose against you as a result of which you were acquitted by the Court. By your this act of moving about in public openly armed with pistol, you caused apprehension in the mind of the people as a result of which public order has been affected adversely. (3) In the night of 9/10 1. 83 at about 12. 00 a dacoity was committed at the house of Ram Sajiwan Mallah. Ramjeets wife was killed. A report of this incident was lodged at the police station on 10. 1. (3) In the night of 9/10 1. 83 at about 12. 00 a dacoity was committed at the house of Ram Sajiwan Mallah. Ramjeets wife was killed. A report of this incident was lodged at the police station on 10. 1. 83 under section 460 I. P. C. but after investigation the crime was converted into section 396 I P. C. During investigation your name came into light and you were also identified in the identification proceedings. The effect of your such daring acts has affected the public order adversely. The case is pending trial before the court. (4) On 7. 10. 83 at about 4. 30 p. m. you committed murder of Vishwanath Pathak and Smt. Mahrania who was going with him on a cycle by chasing them on a motor cycle on the road. Meja Khas to Urva near village Chapartala Vishwanath Pathak died instantaneously on the spot while Smt. Mahrani succumbed to her injuries in the hospital. As a result of this incident the locality was gripped with fear and terror. A report was lodged at the police station and after investigation chargesheet has been submitted to the Court on 14. 12. 83 and is pending trial before the Court. (5) On 18. 7. 84 at about 3. 00 p. m. some enquiry was being held by A. D. O. Panchayat, Rajmani Pandey of Meja block in a matter relating to no confidence motion against Rajit Ram Dubey Pradhan of Gaonsabha. During that enquiry Rajit Ram was attacked by your brother Ram Mani Pathak alias Rabar and Bhola Nath, Ex. Pradhan, and his brother by in this. These present there intervened along with Ram Chandra, brother of Rajit Ram. Pradhan of Gaonsabha, whereupon you got agitated and fired gun-shot on Ramchandra Dubey with the licensed gun of Bholanath with the intention to kill him. As a result of gun-shot injuries Ramchandra Dubey died. This desperate act was committed at 3. 00 p. m. in the presence of the general public of the village as a result of which terror and fear was caused which affected public order adversely. On the above grounds the District Magistrate by his order dated 1. 10. 84 stated that he was satisfied that Brijbasi Pathak was likely to act prejudicially to public order and that it was necessary to detain him for the maintenance of public order. On the above grounds the District Magistrate by his order dated 1. 10. 84 stated that he was satisfied that Brijbasi Pathak was likely to act prejudicially to public order and that it was necessary to detain him for the maintenance of public order. ( 3 ) THE said order was passed under subsection (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act 1980 and the petitioner was detained on 2. 10. 84. On 22nd September, 1984 the petitioner submitted representation to the State Government but the same was rejected on 20. 11. 84. On receipt of the recommendation of the advisory board the State Government confirmed the order of detention on 24. 11. 84. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has alleged that he was not afforded opportunity of making representation as required by the Act, inasmuch as in respect of grounds Nos. 1 and 3 statements of witnesses made under section 161 (1) Cr. P. C. and copy of identification memo, implicating the petitioner in the incident alleged in the said grounds were not supplied to him. These materials were not supplied to the petitioner as a result of which his constitutional right to make representation as contemplated by Article 22 (5) of the Constitution was violated. The detaining authority, namely, the District Magistrate, Allahabad, has filed his affidavit but in his affidavit he has not denied the petitioners assertion that statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. and the identification memo on the basis of which petitioners involvement in the incident relating to grounds 1 and 3 were assumed by the detaining authority, were not supplied to him. ( 5 ) GROUND No. 1 relates to incident of dacoity alleged to have been committed at the house of Ravi Shankar on 19. 7. 84 while ground No. 3 relates to commission of a dacoity at the house of Ram Sajiwan Mallah in the mid night of 9/10. 1. 1983. in the first information report lodged in respect of both these incidents the petitioner was not named. His involvement was, however, found by the police during investigation on the basis of the statement of a witness recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. Further, the petitioner was put up for identification and the witnesses identified him. 1. 1983. in the first information report lodged in respect of both these incidents the petitioner was not named. His involvement was, however, found by the police during investigation on the basis of the statement of a witness recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. Further, the petitioner was put up for identification and the witnesses identified him. On the basis of these materials the police held that the petitioner was involved in the commission of dacoity in the aforesaid two incidents and a chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner to the Court. Though copies of the F. I. Rs. relating to the said incidents of ground Nos. 1 and 3 had been supplied to the petitioner but the ) pies of the statements recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. involving the petitioner in the incident as well s copy of the identification memo were not supplied to him. The statements of the witness recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. and the identification memo were vital and relevant material on the basis of which petitioner was found to have anteceded in the incidents and as such it was necessary for the detaining authority to have supplied these material to the petitioner in order the afford him effective opportunity to make representation. Since these relevant materials were not supplied to the petitioner, the detention order on the basis of grounds Nos. 1 and 3 stands vitiated. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner then urged that the facts asserted in grounds 2, 4 and 5 have no nexus to public order instead they relate to law and order. Ground No. 2 relates to the petitioners arrest on 21. 9. 82 and after arrest he was found in possession of an unlicensed 12 bore country-made pistol along with two cartridges. The petitioner was sent up for trial where he was acquitted by the Court. Ground No. 4 relates to murderous assault on Vishwanath Pathak and Smt. Mahrania in village Chapartala, while ground No. 5 relates to an altercation which took place between two parties on 18. 7. 84 during an enquiry which was being held by the A. D. O. Panchayat in a matter relating to no confidence motion against Rajit Ram Dubey Pradhan. In that altercation the petitioner is alleged to have shot dead Ram Chandra Dubey. 7. 84 during an enquiry which was being held by the A. D. O. Panchayat in a matter relating to no confidence motion against Rajit Ram Dubey Pradhan. In that altercation the petitioner is alleged to have shot dead Ram Chandra Dubey. The impact and the reach of these incidents was not such as to disturb the public peace and tranquility nor they had potentiality to disturb the even tempo of the life of the community. In Habeas Corpus Petition No. 11151 of 1984 Ashok Dixit v. State of U. P. decided on 1. 8. 1985 a Division Bench of this Court after considering a large number of decisions of the Supreme Court observed as under: The act or incident which may be attributed to the detenu, may be reprehensible, and yet if it concerns only specific. individuals and it has no impact on the general members of the community and has no potentiality of disturbing the even tempo of the life of the people it cannot be held to be an activity prejudicial to public order. Merely because the activity in a public place creates terror among the spectators does not necessarily have the potentiality to affect the even tempo of the life of the community, Applying the aforesaid principles, we are of the view that the incidents as contained in grounds Nos. 2, 4 and 5 do not relate to public order instead they relate to law and order. The incidents alleged against the petitioner pertain to specific individuals and none of the incidents alleged against the petitioner suggest that the petitioners activity endangered public peace and tranquility or that his activity was directed towards general members of the public and its impact was so much in the locality that these living there were prevented from following their normal avocation of life ( 7 ) IN view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the satisfaction of the District Magistrate in detaining the petitioner on ground Nos. 2, 4 and 5 is vitiated as these grounds on which he formed his satisfaction do not relate to public order. So far as grounds Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned, petitioners detention is vitiated as vital and relevant material was not supplied to him. Since all the grounds art which detaining authority passed order directing the petitioners detention are vitiated, the detention order is rendered illegal. So far as grounds Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned, petitioners detention is vitiated as vital and relevant material was not supplied to him. Since all the grounds art which detaining authority passed order directing the petitioners detention are vitiated, the detention order is rendered illegal. ( 8 ) IN the result the petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be detained in some other case. Petition allowed .