JUDGMENT A.S. Srivastava, J. - Krishna Kumar Pandey alias Tuntun Pandey s/o Dhanushdahri Pandey r/o Chakdahi P. S. Khalilabad, district Basti, has, by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenged the validity of an order dated 15-2-1985 passed under S. 3(2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the District Magistrate, Basti (hereinafter referred to as the detaining authority), In pursuance of this order, the petitioner was arrested on the same date, i.e. 15-2-1985. 2. The State Government accorded approval to the above order of detention of the petitioner on 21-2-1985. On 23-2-1985 it was referred to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board after giving a hearing to the petitioner on 27-3-1985 sent its opinion to the State Government on 4-4-1985. The State Government confirmed the order of detention of the petitioner on 12-4-1985. In the meantime i.e. on 3-3-1985 the petitioner made a representation challenging his detention which was also rejected by the State Government on 13-3-1985. This rejection was communicated to the petitioner by the State Government on 16-3-1985. 3. The grounds on which the detention of the petitioner has been ordered by the detaining authority are as under : (Matter in vernacular omitted - Ed.) 4. The petitioner has challenged the order of detention passed against him on the following grounds : (1) The basic materials relied upon, referred to, and extracted in the grounds forming the basis of his detention are integral part of the grounds. Since they have not been supplied to the petitioner along with the grounds within a reasonable time thereafter, there has been violation of S. 8 of the Act and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. (2) Such materials as are referred to in the above grounds were also also not sent to the State Government before the order of detention against the petitioner was approved by the State Government. Therefore, not only the order of approval of the petitioner's detention by the State Government was without consideration of basic materials relied upon by the detaining authority and consequently mechanical but there also has been violation of sub-secs. (4) and (5) of S. 3 of the Act. Therefore, not only the order of approval of the petitioner's detention by the State Government was without consideration of basic materials relied upon by the detaining authority and consequently mechanical but there also has been violation of sub-secs. (4) and (5) of S. 3 of the Act. (3) For the same reason, i.e. on account of the basic materials relied upon by the detaining authority having not been placed before the Advisory Board or before the State Government, the proceeding before the Advisory Board as well as the confirmation of the order of detention by the State Government were mechanical. 5. In order to substantiate these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to five grounds of the petitioners' detention already quoted above in verbatim. The portions relied upon by him in grounds mentioned in Col. 1 are summarised in Col. 3 of the Chart given below. The materials supplied are mentioned in Col. 2. Grounds Materials supplied Facts mentioned in the grounds but not mentioned in the materials specified in column". 1 2 3 Ground No. 1 : It relates to an incident of 7-6-81 registered as case crime No. 193A of 1981 at PS Munderwa Basti under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC. A copy of FIR dated 7-6-81 is Annexure 3 to the petition. 1. In the FIR it is mentioned that (1) only the father was murdered and (b) he was murdered by the petitioner. 2. In the grounds it is further mentioned that during investigation it transpired that (a) two more innocent persons were murdered in that incident and (b) that they were murdered by three persons viz. the petitioner and his brother Krishna Murari Pandey and Constable Dudhnath Gupta. 3. A charge sheet submitted after the investigation is pending in the Court. Ground No. 3 : It relates to an incident dated 3-8-83 registered as Case Crime No. 222/83 at P.S. Kotwali, Khalilabad u/ss. 147, 148. 149 and 307 IPC. A copy of FIR dated 3-8-83 is Annexure 6 to the petition.(In this report facts mentioned in column 3 are not stated as they relate to events subsequent to this report). Ground No. 3 : It relates to an incident dated 3-8-83 registered as Case Crime No. 222/83 at P.S. Kotwali, Khalilabad u/ss. 147, 148. 149 and 307 IPC. A copy of FIR dated 3-8-83 is Annexure 6 to the petition.(In this report facts mentioned in column 3 are not stated as they relate to events subsequent to this report). After the report was lodged at the Police Station, the police reached the place of occurrence, went in the direction in which the assailants had run away and after going for short distance forcibly arrested one Rakesh Singh and recovered a revolver from his possession. During investigation injured Hira Raj Singh succumbed to his injuries and the crime was then converted into one under Sec. 302 IPC. Ground No. 4: It relates to an incident dated 6-8-84 registered as Crime No. 248/84 at PS Khalilabad Basti u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 332, 504, 506, IPC. A copy of FIR dated 6-8-84 is Annexure 7 to the petition. (In the FIR the facts mentioned in Column 3 are not stated). As a result of this incident employees and officers of the Hydel Department went on strike causing interruption in the supply of electricity and water to the citizens. The general public were greatly inconvenienced on account of non-supply of these essential things and they were greatly agitated. Demonstrations were held at several places and they created a difficult problem for the administration for maintenance of peace. The administration had to requisition police force for making safe arrangements for maintaining peace and security in the town. The employees of the Hydel Department remained on strike for 48 hours, i.e. for full two days and two nights and the Government officers had to try hard so that the strike may not spread to the other region. After investigation, a charge-sheet in the case was filed not only against the petitioner but also against Jagarnath Misra, Ravindra Misra, Prem Chandra, Bhagwan Das and Vijai Kumar Chaudhary. 5A. It would appear from the above chart that the petitioner pointed out facts mentioned in Col. 3 above in respect of Grounds Nos. 1, 3 and 4 which were not stated in the materials supplied to him vide Col. 2 in the Chart. The question is whether these facts stated in Col. 3 are integral parts of the grounds and are material facts. 3 above in respect of Grounds Nos. 1, 3 and 4 which were not stated in the materials supplied to him vide Col. 2 in the Chart. The question is whether these facts stated in Col. 3 are integral parts of the grounds and are material facts. If not, are they relevant having nexus with the grounds of detention of the petitioner. 6. After considering the facts of this case in the light of the materials on the record, we find ourselves in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of Grounds Nos. 1, 3 and 4. 7. In the first ground of detention, the facts which are not stated in the materials supplied to the petitioner are that after investigation Krishna Murari Pandey, the brother of the petitioner and one constable Dudhnath Gupta had also participated in the crime in which three persons were murdered including Sabhajeet Pandey, the father of the complainant. It is further mentioned therein that as a result of investigation, all the three accused involved in this incident were arrested and a charge-sheet against all the three of them was filed in the Court where it is pending trial. These facts appear to have been stated in the ground on the basis of reports dated 15-12-1984, 11-1-1985 and 14-2-1985 of the S.H.O. Khalilabad and the Superintendent of Police, Basti, copies of which are Annexures 1, 2 and 3 of the rejoinder-affidavit. 8. Similarly in Ground No. 3 the facts mentioned in Col. 3 that the police arrested the culprits on the lodging of the report after going to the place of occurrence and then running in the direction in which they were reported to have run away after the commission of the crime and in such a chase they were successful in arresting one Rakesh Singh only at a short distance from whose possession a revolver was also recovered and the fact that the victim Hira Raj Singh succumbed to his injuries received in the incident subsequently on the basis of which the case registered against the petitioner and others was converted into one under S. 302 IPC also does not find mention in the materials supplied to the petitioner by the detaining authority. These facts also seem to have been extracted and relied upon in this ground on the basis of two police reports dated 15-12-1984 and 11-1-1985 referred to above. 9. In the fourth ground the facts that the officers and employees of the Hydel Department went on strike find no mention in the materials supplied to the petitioner as detailed in Col. 2. These facts are also not supported by the F.I.R. of this case, a copy of which was supplied to the petitioner. These facts seem to have been extracted and relied upon by the detaining authority on the basis of the police reports dated 15-12-1984 and 11-1-1985. 10. It is evident, therefore, that the police reports dated 15-12-1984 and 11-1-1985 and 14-2-85 contained materials which were extracted and relied upon by the detaining authority in arriving at the requisite satisfaction. 11. It cannot be disputed that the above mentioned facts referred to in Grounds Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are damaging character. It can also not be disputed that they, as stated in the grounds, have nexus and relevancy with the object of detention of the petitioner. These facts were, as is evident from the grounds of the petitioner's detention, considered by the detaining authority at the time when he arrived at the subjective satisfaction forming the basis of the order of detention passed by him. Therefore, the materials which contained these facts had undisputedly influenced the detaining authority in arriving at the requisite satisfaction. In other words, these materials were of basic character. They having nexus with the object of detention were relevant. Therefore, they were required to be communicated to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention. Since they were not supplied to the petitioner along with the grounds or at any time thereafter, the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity of making an effective representation against his detention. It follows therefrom that there has been a violation of S. 8 of the Act and Article 22(5) of the Constitution. 12. It may further be mentioned in this connection that the aforesaid materials were not only not furnished to the petitioner but they were not only not furnished to the petitioner but they were also not sent to the State Government before the order of detention of the petitioner was approved or confirmed. 12. It may further be mentioned in this connection that the aforesaid materials were not only not furnished to the petitioner but they were not only not furnished to the petitioner but they were also not sent to the State Government before the order of detention of the petitioner was approved or confirmed. As already seen above, these materials being of basic nature and relevant to the order of detention, the detaining authority was under an obligation to send the same also to the State Government while forwarding the order of detention to them for approval or confirmation. Section 3(4) of the Act reads as under : "When any order is made under this section by an officer mentioned in sub-sec. (3), he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government to which he is subordinate together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government." 13. The words "such other particulars as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter" in the section leave no room for any controversy that all such facts which have a bearing on the matter within the meaning of S. 3(4) of the Act are to be placed before the State Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made. 14. The fact that the petitioner has been furnished with the grounds of detention only Annexures 3 to 8 annexed to the writ petition is admitted. In pars 16 of the counter-affidavit it is averred that all the documents which have been relied upon by the detaining authority were given to the petitioner. In that event there is no question of his sending any more document to the State Government also viz., the copies of the three police reports dated 15-12-1984, 11-1-1985 and 14-2-1985, i.e. these three reports which were not supplied by the detaining authority to the petitioner were also not sent by him to the State Government. As already discussed above, these reports were not only relied upon by the detaining authority but they were extracted also by him in the grounds of detention. As already discussed above, these reports were not only relied upon by the detaining authority but they were extracted also by him in the grounds of detention. Therefore, the mere fact that the detaining authority has stated in his counter-affidavit that he has not placed reliance on the facts contained in these reports cannot be accepted. In Virendra Singh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 1909 in a similar situation, following the decisions in Smt. Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1983 and Smt. Shalini Soni v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 431 the Supreme Court observed as under : "In this case as the documents and the materials forming the basis of the order of detention had not been supplied to the detenu along with the order of detention when the same was served on him, the order is rendered void." 15. We are, therefore, of the opinion that even the approval and confirmation of the order of detention of the petitioner stands vitiated. 16. For reasons given above, we are of the opinion that the order of detention of the petitioner on Grounds Nos. 1, 3 and 4 cannot be sustained. 17. The remaining grounds are Grounds Nos. 2 and 5. Since we have already held that the approval and confirmation of the order of detention of the petitioner by the State Government stands vitiated for reasons given above, the order of detention of the petitioner on these grounds can also not be allowed to stand. However, even if these two grounds are considered separately, we find that they do not relate to public order. 18. Ground No. 2 relates to an incident which had taken place on 12-1-83 inside the shop of Prahlad Ram. The incident related to only an individual and had no nexus with the community as a whole. While deciding Habeas Corpus Writ Petn. No. 3865 of 1985, Shaukat Ali v. State of U.P. decided on 5-8-1985 a Division Bench of this Court has held that even the use of indiscriminate firing or use of firearms to the building of a particular individual does not relate to public order but raises only a question of law and order. In this view of the matter, this ground cannot be said to be subversive of public order. 19. In this view of the matter, this ground cannot be said to be subversive of public order. 19. Similarly Ground No. 5 relates to an incident dated 15-12-1984 in which the petitioner by pointing a gun at Pahari alias Uma Shankar Pandey thereatened him with dire consequences if he did not abstain from canvassing for the Congress-I candidate, A copy of the report of this incident supplied to the petitioner is Annexure-8. Obviously this act of the petitioner was also directed at an individual, i.e. Pahari alias Uma Shankar Pandey to abstain from canvassing for the Congress-I candidate in the Lok Sabha Elections. This also has no nexus with public order. 20. For reasons given above, the petitioner's continued detention cannot be sustained. 21. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith if he is not, required to be detained in connection with any other matter.