A. S. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) AMAR Mani Tripathi, Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the detenut1), has filed this Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity of the detention order, dated 17. 11. 1984, passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as the detaining authoritytt), exercising his powers under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, Act No. 65 of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), directing his detention under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act in District Jail, Gorakhpur. The said detention order is Annexure 1 to the petition. On 27. 11. 1984, the petitioner detenu was served with the detention order and the grounds and was sent to District Jail, Gorakhpur, when he surrendered before the District Magistrate on that day. ( 2 ) THE detention order and its grounds were received by the State Government on 19. 11. 1984 and were approved on 23. 11. 1984. Intimation of approval was sent to the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur on 26. 11. 1984. The case of the detenu was referred to Advisory Board on 29. 11. 1984. The representation of the detenu dated 17. 12. 1984 was received by the State Government on 19. 12. 1934 from the District Magistrate, Bareilly. The representation was placed before the Advisory Board on 22. 12. 1984. The representation of the detenu was examined in the Secretariat on various levels as averred in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by Sri Gopal Trivedi, an Upper Division Assistant in the Confidential, Section 5, U. P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, and was rejected on 28. 12. 84. Intimation of rejection of the representation was sent to the detenu on 31. 12. 84 through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bareilly. ( 3 ) THE grounds of detention appear is Annexure to the petition which are stated as follows: (1) That on 7. 5. 83 at 6. 12. 84. Intimation of rejection of the representation was sent to the detenu on 31. 12. 84 through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bareilly. ( 3 ) THE grounds of detention appear is Annexure to the petition which are stated as follows: (1) That on 7. 5. 83 at 6. 30 p. m. , the detenu along with his leader, Sri Han Shanker Tiwari, and the other members of his gang, namely, Parmatma Tewari, Anoop Lal, Suresh Pandey, Shaukat Ali Kripa Shanker Pandey, Krishna Mohan Pandey and Abrar Iraqi and others armed with rifles and guns stopped the car of Virendra Pratap Shahi, M. L. A. , in which Gyan Prakash Shahi, Hasan Beg and others were seated in Laxmipur Bazar, Police Station Puranderpur on the main road and started indiscriminate firing with the result that Hasan Beg and a boy of the Bazar, namely, Hira Lal died on the spot. A terror wave was unleashed due to this incident. The people were fear stricken and terrorised. The public order was disturbed. This ground relates to the first information report made by Gyan Prakash Shahi at Police-Station Puranderpur, on the basis of which a case was registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302, I. P. C. at Crime No. 68 of 1983. The said offence is being investigated by the C. I. D. (2) That on 3. 8. 1983 at 8. 30 a. m. , in Khalilabad, an important business centre of district Basti, the detenu along with Han Shanker Tewari, Krishna Kumar Pandey alias Tuntun, Arvind Singh and Rakesh Singh, the members of his gang, armed with revolver and other fire arms, came on motor cycle and, due to enmity, fired on Hira Raj Singh who was taking tea at a shop. Hira Raj Singh died in the Medical College, Gorakhpur, on 6 8. 83. Khalilabad and nearby areas were terror stricken of his gang due to this incident. Thus, the public order was disturbed. The ground is based on the case registered at Crime No. 222 of 1983 under Sections 147, 148, 149,307 and 302, I. P. C. at Police-Station Khalilabad on the report of Zeenat Singh. The case is being investigated by the C. I. D. (3) That on 23. 12. 83 at about 1. 00 pm. Thus, the public order was disturbed. The ground is based on the case registered at Crime No. 222 of 1983 under Sections 147, 148, 149,307 and 302, I. P. C. at Police-Station Khalilabad on the report of Zeenat Singh. The case is being investigated by the C. I. D. (3) That on 23. 12. 83 at about 1. 00 pm. , the detenu along with Ravindra Rao, Han Shanker Tewari and 30-35 others of his gang armed with rifle and gun with the intention of capturing Mughalpura Polling Booth and forcibly casting votes in village Mughalpura, Police Station Patheharwa, district Deoria during the bye-election, started threatening the people, and the detenu and Han Shanker Tewari, in order to create terror, fired which resulted in the death of Sukhal Rao and injuries to Belbhar, Ram Kali and Mohammed Din. Because of the indiscriminate firing by the detenu and his companions on the day of election at the polling booth, the election work was dislocated and the people were frightened. They started running helter and skelter and the terror wave was unleashed. Thus the public order was disturbed. This ground related to the first information report lodged by Basdeo Rao at police station Patherwa district Deoria, on the basis of which a case was registered at Crime No. 94 of 1983, under sections 147, 148, 149 and 307, I. P. C. (4) On 15. 8. 84 at 9. 30 p. m. , in Mohalla Krishna Maraiya Humaunpur (South) of the city of Gorakhpur, the detenu called for Sri Vijay Kumar Agarwal, resident of Mohalla Bindvasni, Police- station Kotwali, Gorakhpur, at his residence and with the intention to have unlawful possession and ownership over the petrol pump owned by Vijay Kumar situate at Golf Ground in Mohalla Mohiuddinpur along with his three other associates threatened Vijay Kumar at gun point and frightened him and obtained his signature on 6-7 stamp papers which were already written and prepared and the detenu also told Vijay Kumar that his petrol pump then belonged to the detenu and that the detenu would take possession over the same by 6. 00 a. m. in the morning. The business community was terror stricken and frightened due to this incident. The businessmen closed their shops and the whole of Gorakhpur was terrorised. Thus the public order was disturbed. 00 a. m. in the morning. The business community was terror stricken and frightened due to this incident. The businessmen closed their shops and the whole of Gorakhpur was terrorised. Thus the public order was disturbed. The ground is based on the first information report made by Vijay Kumar at police station Kotwali, Gorakhpur, under sections 384 and 506, I. P. C. registered at Crime No. 272 of 1984. On 6. 8. 84 Kaushal Tewari, son of Han Shanker Tewari abducted and committed the murder of one Sardar Ajit Singh at the Chhawani of Han Shanker Tewari situated in village Sunauli, police station Nautanwa. A case, under sec. 364, I. P. C. , was registered at police station Nautanwa at Crime No. 74 of 1984 and was altered during investigation to under sections 302/201 I. P. C. Great anguish and terror prevailed in Nautanwa due to this incident and several demonstrations, strikes and incidents of road-held up and train held-up took place. The district administration was faced with a serious problem and to cope with the situation, P. A. C. was called. To terrorise the witnesses of the said murder and to suppress the opposition there and to create fear in the people there, the detenu indulged in acts which created terror and public order was breached. The incidents are as follows:(5) That in the night between 3rd and 4th October, 1984 at about 3. 00 am. , the detenu along with his, gang leader, Han Shanker Tewari, Ganesh Shankar Pandey, Kripa Shanker Pandey, Krishna Mohan Pandey, Guchchhan Pandey, Daya Chandra Pandey, Ram Chandra Singh, Indra Kamal Pandey, Anoop Lal, Durga Shanker Pandey, Sant Kumar Dhobi and 30 others in six vehicles armed with fire arms raided the house of Guru Prasad Singh with intention to murder him and his family members. Guru Prasad and his family members raised alarm. They then went away threatening him to stop the opposition otherwise they would get whole of Nautanwa burnt. Section 144, Cr. P. C. was in force in Nautanwa during that period and demonstration of fire-arms or other arms or to move with arms was prohibited. But the detenu and his gang-men did not care for that and created terror and disturbed the public order. Section 144, Cr. P. C. was in force in Nautanwa during that period and demonstration of fire-arms or other arms or to move with arms was prohibited. But the detenu and his gang-men did not care for that and created terror and disturbed the public order. Guru Prasad lodged a report at Police Station Nautanwa, under sections 147, 352, 504, 506, I. P. C. and the case was registered at Crime No. 199 of 1984. (6) That on 4. 10. 84 at 2. 00 p. m. the detenu along with his gang leader Han Shanker Tewari and Kripa Shanker Pandey, Krishna Mohan, Hamid, Pradhan Dayaram, Dulare and Baboo Lal his gang men armed with rifles and guns entered the house of Mahant Singh, resident of Sakrauli, Police station Nautanwa with intention to commit his murder. Mahant Singh escaped into the house of Kalpanath Singh. The detenu and his associates took away his Rs. 2600/ -. They threatened that the family members of Mahant Singh would be killed if he appeared as a witness in Ajit Singhs murder case. A case was registered at Crime No. 111 of 1984 under Section 143, 452, 380, I. P. C. at Police station Nautanwa on the report of Mahant Singh. (7) That on 5. 10. 1984 at about 5. 45 pm. Anirudh Kumar Jaiswal was sitting in his rice mill when the detenu alongwith his gang leader Han Shanker Tewari and Ganesh Shanker Pandey, Durga Shanker Pandey, Guchchhan Pandey, Abrar Iraqi and other associates armed with rifle, gun and stun-gun etc. reached there in a jeep with intention to commit his murder and fired indiscriminately on him. He somehow saved himself by hiding in the mill. This created sensation in Nautanwa and nearby areas. All were terrorised by the detenu and his gang. Thus the public order was breached. A case was registered at police station Nautanwa at Crime No. 113 of 1984 under sections 147,148, 149 and 307, I. P. C. on the report of Anirudh Kumar Jaiswal. (8) That on 5. 10. 1984 at about 5. 45 p. m. when Guru Prasad was going from the side of Thuthibari Teraha, the detenu along with other associates of his gang armed with rifles and guns in 8-10 jeeps while coming from the side of Surauli saw him and with intention to commit his murder fired at him. (8) That on 5. 10. 1984 at about 5. 45 p. m. when Guru Prasad was going from the side of Thuthibari Teraha, the detenu along with other associates of his gang armed with rifles and guns in 8-10 jeeps while coming from the side of Surauli saw him and with intention to commit his murder fired at him. He somehow fled away and saved himself. On the report of Guru Prasad, a case was registered at Crime No. 113-A of 1984 under sections 147, 148, 149 and 307, I. P. C. at police station Nautanwa. (9) That on 5. 10. 1984 at about 5. 45 p. m. the detenu alongwith the members of his gang armed with rifles, guns and stun-guns driven 8-10 jeeps with intention to commit his murder fired at Kuldeep Singh who was going to police station to make a report about the terror created by the detenu and his associated in regard to the murder of Ajit Singh and went away. He somehow saved his life by hiding. Terror wave was unleashed by this incident and the people were frightened. A case was registered at Crime No. 113b of 1984 under sections 147, 148, 149 and 307, I. P. C. at police station Nautanwa. (10) That in the night between 9th and 10th October, 1984 at about 12. 45 a. m. the detenu along with his gang-men Kripa Shanker Pandey, Krishna Mohan Pandey, Dayanand Pandey, Abrar Iraqi and 40-50 persons driven in jeeps armed with rifles and guns arrived at the gate of the house of Kilnwar Akhilesh Singh and called his name and threatened to kill him and on the exhortation of the detenu Kripa Shanker fired two rounds on Akhilesh Singh who saved himself by hiding. Terror prevailed in whole of Nautanwa by this incident. A case was registered at Crime No. 146 of 1984 at police station Nautanwa on the report of Akhilesh Singh under sections 147, 148, 149 and 307, I. P. C. ( 4 ) ON the aforesaid grounds the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur was subjectively satisfied that the detenu was likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and to prevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order found it necessary to preventively detain him and passed the aforesaid detention order. ( 5 ) WHILE challenging the detention order, the learned counsel for the detenu has contended: (1) that his representation was decided after inordinate delay without there being any explanation for the same. (2) that the incidents, on which the detention order is grounded, all relates to law and order and not to public ordert, and (3) that material and relevant documents, which were relied upon by the detaining authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction have not been supplied to the detenu and, therefore, the detenu has been deprived of his right of making effective representation against tbe detention order. In order to decide the first point, we have to consider the following admitted facts: ( 6 ) THE representation of the detenu is dated 17-12-1984. The supplementary counter affidavit filed by Sri Gopal Trivedi, Upper Division Assistant in Confidential Section 5, U. P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, on behalf of the State Government admits in paragraph 2 of the said affidavit that the representation of the detenu was received by the State Government on 19-12-1984 and the same was rejected by the State Government on 28-12-1984. According to the affidavit of Sri Trivedi, comments of the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur were asked on the same day i. e. 19-12-1984 and were received by the Government on 22-12-1984 along with the letter of the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, dated 21-12-1984. In our opinion, the comments of the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur (detaining authority) were necessary while considering the-representation. In the aforesaid supplementary affidavit it is stated that the representation of the petitioner was examined at various levels in the Secretariat and was rejected by the State Government on 28-12-1984. Between 22nd and 28th December, 1984, two days i. e. 23rd December (being Sunday) and 25th December (being X-Mas) were holidays. Thus the Government took three days at the Secretariat level to decide upon the representation of the detenu. It would have been better if the explanation offered on behalf of the State Government through the affidavit of Sri Trivedi was more specific as to who considered the representation and at what level; but, in the circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the time taken by the Government in deciding the representation cannot be said to be unreasonable nor it can be said that there was inordinate delay in deciding the representation of the detenu. Taking a practical view of the situation, some time is bound to lapse between the receipt of the representation, consideration and decision thereon. No hard and fast rule, as to the measure of time can be laid for the appropriate authority for such consideration, but the time taken should not be the result of a pathy, indifference, inaction or lethargy at any stage. In the present case, the comments of the detaining authority were necessary and we have already held that the time taken at the secretariat level was not unreasonable. On behalf of the detenu, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Barish Pahwa v. State of U. P. and other,1. In that case, the representation of the detenu dated 3rd June, 1980 was received by the State Government on 4th June, 1980, but for two days no action was taken in connection with it. On the 6th of June, 1980, comments were called for from the custom authorities with regard to the allegations made in the representation and such comments were received by the State Government on 13th June, 1980. On the 17th of June, 1980, the State Government referred the representation to its Law Department for its opinion which was furnished on the 19th of June, 1980. The rejection of the representation was ordered on the 24th of June, 1980. The case of the State was that the representation was with the Customs Authorities who were formulating their comments from 7th June, 1980 to 12th June, 1980, and the representation was under the consideration of the Government for four days from 23th June, 1980 to 16th June, 1980, of its Law Department from 17th June, 1980 to 19th June, 1980 and then again under its own consideration for six days from 19th June, 1980 to 24th June, 1980. It was in such circumstances that their Lordships observed that calling comments from other departments, seeking the opinion of the Secretary after Secretary and allowing the representation to lie without being attended to is not the type of action which the State is expected to take in matter of such vital importance. It was in such circumstances that their Lordships observed that calling comments from other departments, seeking the opinion of the Secretary after Secretary and allowing the representation to lie without being attended to is not the type of action which the State is expected to take in matter of such vital importance. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of this Court in Rajendra Kumar Sharma v. Superintendent, District Jail, Agra and ohers2, wherein the representation of the detenu was placed before the Home Secretary on 26-8-1984 which could not be placed before the Chief Minister on 30-8-1984. There was no explanation as to why that representation, which took thirteen days in travelling from section concerned to the Home Secretary, remained lying for further four days at his table. The journey of that representation in the Secretariat of the State from 13. 8. 1984 to 30-8-1984 had not been swift and there had been needless wastage of time at some stages of that journey, and, therefore, it was held that there was undue delay in disposal of the petitioners representation which could not be justified. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar and others3, wherein there was twenty-eight days delay in considering the representation of the detenu and therefore their Lordships held it to be inordinate delay in the circumstances of that case. The facts and the circumstances of the cases cited above differ from the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In the present case, there has been no delay at the end of the District Magistrate and at the Secretariate level. Excluding the two holidays only three days time was taken for the decision upon the representation of the detenu and taking a practical view, we have said that the time taken at the Secretariat level is not unreasonable. Thus the first contention of the detenu is repelled as aforesaid. ( 7 ) BEFORE we proceed to examine the grounds of detention with a view to find out whether they relate to problem of law and ordert or public order, it is necessary to point out that in paragraph 15 of the writ petition, the petitioner has specifically asserted that all the cases are as a consequence of enmity with the aforesaid Virendra Pratap Shahi. This assertion has not been denied by the District Magistrate, Sri R. P. Sinha in his counter affidavit. The representation of the detenu is Annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit of Fateh Bahadur. In paragraph 9 (Dal of this Annexure lit, the detenu asserted that Virendra Pratap Shahi had tried to commit his murder and the report in that respect was lodged at Police-station Hazratganj at Lucknow. He bas also asserted that Virendra Pratap Shahi was arrested by Hazratganj Police in connection with that case. The enmity between Virendra Pratap Shahi and the detenu is not denied. Ground No. 1 relates to the first information report made by Gyan Prakash Shahi and registered at Crime No. 68 of 1983 at Police-station Purenderpur, district Gorakhpur. According to this report, the detenu and his companions resorted to indiscriminate firing at Virendra Pratap Shahi and his associates, namely, Gyan Prakash Shahi and Hasan Beg who were travelling in the car of Virendra Pratap Shahi. ( 8 ) ANNEXURE 11411 to the supplementary affidavit filed by Fateh Bahadur is a first information report lodged by the detenu on 5-10-84 at 6. 30 p. m. at Police-station Nautanwa, Gorakhpur, under sections 147, 148, 149 and 307, I. P. C. against Akhilesh Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Gur Prasad Singh, Dilip Jaiswal, Munna Singh, Dhaneshwar Burnwal, Rameshwar Burnwal, Banarsi Lal and some others. Annexure 3 to the same supplementary affidavit is another report made by Sri Durga Shanker Pandey at Police-station Nautanwa on 20-8-1984, wherein Virendra Pratap Shahi, Sardar Kuldeep Singh, Sardar Sita Singh, Sher Bahadur Singh, Bachche Singh, Rana ahas Tara and Anirudh Jaiswal have been made accused. This Durga Shanker Pandey is an associate of detenu, as is mentioned in Grounds Nos. 5 and 7 of the detention order. Annexure 5 to the supplementary affidavit contains the grounds of detention against Akhilesh Singh whose detention order is based on the first information report lodged by Durga Shanker Pandey and the detenu. In these grounds, Kuldeep Singh, Anirudh Jaiswal and Gur Prasad Singh have been mentioned as associates of Akhilesh Singh. Grounds Nos. 1, 5, 7, 6, 9 and 10 relates to these persons. Virendra Pratap Shahi and his associates, namely, Akhilesh Singh, Kuldeep Singh. Gur Prasad Singh and Anirudh Jaiswal are thus inimically disposed towards the detenu. ( 9 ) IN Grounds Nos. Grounds Nos. 1, 5, 7, 6, 9 and 10 relates to these persons. Virendra Pratap Shahi and his associates, namely, Akhilesh Singh, Kuldeep Singh. Gur Prasad Singh and Anirudh Jaiswal are thus inimically disposed towards the detenu. ( 9 ) IN Grounds Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10, the specified individuals, namely, Gur Prasad Singh, Anirudh Jaiswal, Kuldeep Singh and Akhilesh Singh are the targets of attack. In none of these grounds, the public at large is involved or is made the target of attack. The cause of attack is personal animosity. In our opinion, these grounds do not relate to problem of public order. They are problems of law and order. Ground No. 6 relates to first information report made by Mahant Singh at Crime No. 111 of 1984, under Sections 143, 452 and 380, I. P. C. at Police-station Nautanwa wherein it is alleged that the detenu along with his associates, all with rifles and guns, entered the house of Mahant Singh at 2. 00 p. m. on 4-10-1984 with intention to commit his murder. Mahant Singh escaped into the house of Kalap Nath Singh. The detenu and his associates took away Rs. 2,600/- belonging to Mahant Singh and threatened that the family members of Mahant Singh would be killed if he appeared as a witness in Ajit Singhs murder case. Mahant Singh was threatened at his residence of course with show of force. The threat VI as not extended to him in public place, but at his own residence. In our opinion, this act hall no potentiality to effect the even tempo of the life of the community and is, therefore, again a problem of law and order and has no relation to public order. Regarding this ground, final report No. 34 had been submitted on 21. 10. 84, as averred in paragraph 3 of the supplementary rejoinder affidavit of Fateh Bahadur. Photostat copy of the questionaire in this respect is annexed to the said supplementary rejoinder- affidavit as Annexure TI1ti The said final report has been accepted by the C. J. M. , Gorakhpur much before the detention order was passed. Thus, it is clear that, after investigation, the police found that the allegation made by Mahant Singh in the first information report were not genuine. How could the District Magistrate form the requisite satisfaction on the basis of such a report. Thus, it is clear that, after investigation, the police found that the allegation made by Mahant Singh in the first information report were not genuine. How could the District Magistrate form the requisite satisfaction on the basis of such a report. His satisfaction, therefore, was based on a ground which is non-existent. ( 10 ) THE ground No. 4 is based on a first information report made by Vijay Kumar at police-station kotwali, Gorakhpur, under sections 384 and 506, I. P. C. registered at Crime No. 272 of 1984. According to this report, the detenu called Vijay Kumar Agarwal at his house with intention to have unlawful possession and ownership over the petrol pump owned by Vijay Kumar obtained his signature on 6-7 stamp papers that were kept in ready-ness at the point of gun. The detenu also told Vijay Kumar that he would take possession of the said petrol pump the next morning at 6. 00 a. m. This threat was extended in a private house and not in public place. The target of threat is also the single individual i. e. Vijay Kumar Agarwal and no other trader is involved therein. This act, therefore, has no potentiality to affect the tempo of life of other traders and is, therefore, a problem of law and order and not the public order. ( 11 ) THE second ground related to an act by which the detenu alongwith his associates committed the murder of one Hina Raj Singh who was taking tea at a shop in Khaillabad, an important business centre of district Basti. The cause of murder is enemity as described in the ground itself. In Habeas Corpus Petition No. 11151 of 1984 decided by a Full Bench of this Court on 1. 8. 1985, it has been observed, Murderous assault on an individual in a street on account of personal animosity may affect an individual, while if a similar murderous assault is made on caste basis or communal basis the incident would in all likelihood create caste-hatred and communal riot which would endanger public order and tranquility. Here assault has been made on a single individual on account of enmity. It has no reach on the local community or public at large. The ground, therefore, has no nexus with public order. Here assault has been made on a single individual on account of enmity. It has no reach on the local community or public at large. The ground, therefore, has no nexus with public order. ( 12 ) AS regards ground No. 1 we have pointed out earlier that Virendra Pratap Shahi attempted to kill the detenu at Lucknow. The activity alleged in ground No. 1 is aimed at Virendra Pratap Shahi and his associates. It is very clear that the detenu and his associates stopped the car of Virendra Pratap Shahi and fired at him and his associates seated in the car. ( 13 ) IT is just a matter or chance that a spectator, a boy of the Bazar got injured and died. He was not a target of attack nor any other member of the common public was made a target. It is not alleged in the ground that the incident caused so much terror in the locality that those living there were prevented from following their usual avocations of life. In Deepak Bose v. State of West Bengal4, the Honble Supreme Court has observed: every assault in a public place like a public road and terminating in the death of victim is likely to cause horror and even panic and terror in those who are spectators. But that does not mean that all such incidents do necessarily cause disturbance or dislocation in social life of the localities in which they are committed. T ( 14 ) THE activity attributed to the detenu in this ground is reprehensible, but it has no potentiality to disturb the even tempo of the community. The ground, therefore, relates to law and order and not public order. ( 15 ) THE ground No. 3 relates to an incident of booth-capturing by detenu and his 30-15 other associates on 23. 12. 1983 at 1. 00 p. m. during a bye-election in district Deoria. The detenu and his associate Han Shanker Tewari resorted to thing to create terror. As a result of firing Sukhal Rao died on the spot and three others were injured. On the day of election, in a public place like the polling booth the ad of indiscriminate firing by the detenu and his associate resulted in dislocation of the election. Election is the very foundation of Democratic form of Government to which our country is waded. On the day of election, in a public place like the polling booth the ad of indiscriminate firing by the detenu and his associate resulted in dislocation of the election. Election is the very foundation of Democratic form of Government to which our country is waded. An act of violence and terror that shakes the faith of the people in the very system of election does have nexus to Tpublic order. We are of the opinion that this ground relates to problem of public order. ( 16 ) AS regards this ground, it has also been contended on behalf of the detenu that the ground is based on no material. In paragraph 10 of the supplementary affidavit of Pateh Bahadur, it is averred that, with respect to ground No. 3, final report had been submitted before the detention order was passed by the District Magistrate and that the final report was not placed before the detaining authority and it was, therefore, not considered by the detaining authority at the time of passing the detention order. In the supplementary counter affidavit, Sri R. P. Sinha, District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, has denied that any final report was submitted and has averred that the C. I. D investigation was going on when the detention order was passed. However, it has not been averred nor any document has been filed on behalf of the detenu that the final report was filed and accepted by court. Even if final report had been submitted before the departmental authority, further investigation in that respect could be carried on, and, therefore, the contention on behalf of the detenue has no force and the result is that this ground is the public disorder. ( 17 ) THE third contention on behalf of the detenu is that relevant and material documents which were, relied upon by the detaining authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction have not been supplied to the detenu and, therefore, the detenu has been deprived of his right under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India of making effective representa lion against the detention order. In his representation (Annexure TIJTI to the supplementary affidavit of Fateh Bahadur) vide paragraphs Nos. 19 and 25), the detenu had specifically demanded a number of documents vide a list which was annexed to the representation. The report of the Senior Superintendent of police, Gorakhpur, was also demanded. In his representation (Annexure TIJTI to the supplementary affidavit of Fateh Bahadur) vide paragraphs Nos. 19 and 25), the detenu had specifically demanded a number of documents vide a list which was annexed to the representation. The report of the Senior Superintendent of police, Gorakhpur, was also demanded. It is not disputed that the report of the Senior Superintendent of police bas not been supplied to, the detenu. In paragraphs 9 and 12 of the writ petition, the petitioner has specifically averred that the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police had not been supplied to the petitioner. In paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit of Sri R. P. Sinha, District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, it has been stated that the Senior Superintendent of police bad submitted pap: n relating to the detention of the petitioner to the District Magistrate with his covering letter dated 15. 11. 1984. In paragraph 8 of the same counter-affidavit, it is said that no reliance was placed to the District Magistrate on the report of the Senior Superintendent of police as it was not relevant, and, therefore, question of supply of the same to the petitioner did not arise. It has been said that all the documents relied upon by the District Magistrate were supplied to the petitioner. According to the grounds of detention, the only documents supplied to the petitioner are the first information reports of the various incidents and the radiogram message dated 5. 10. 1984. A reading of the first information reports and the radiogram shows that there is no mention in these documents that the various alleged acts of the detenu had terrified the common people of the area and had caused panic and terror amongst the people, or as alleged in Ground No. 4, the trading community was terrified and had closed their shops or as alleged in Ground No. 3 that the election work was completely dislocated and the people were terror stricken and started running helter and skelter. Ground No. 2 and Ground No. 3 relate to incidents that occurred in districts Basti and Deoria respectively. The reports of these two incidents could not be before the detaining authority unless placed by some one. Obviously, these two reports and the aforesaid aspects of the grounds had been taken from the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur. Ground No. 2 and Ground No. 3 relate to incidents that occurred in districts Basti and Deoria respectively. The reports of these two incidents could not be before the detaining authority unless placed by some one. Obviously, these two reports and the aforesaid aspects of the grounds had been taken from the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur. If the said report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur, did not contain the aforesaid two reports and the facts that the people were terrified, the traders closed their shops, the election was dislocated and the whole area was terror stricken due to the activities of the detenu, then evidently it will be a case where there is no material to draw the above inferences. A reading of all the grounds will show that the matter of terror has been mentioned as a fact and is not a mere inference of detaining authority. This is not the case and this is not possible in fact that the detaining authority could have personal knowledge about these facts and incidents as they relate to various places away from the city of Gorakhpur. It, therefore, follows that the factual information regarding the traders having closed their shops, election being dislocated, people having run helter and skelter, the whole area was terrified and the people were panicky must have been contained in the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police and the detaining authority did rely upon the same. It is very strange that the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police was not relevant and it was not relied upon by the detaining authority. The report of the Senior Superintendent of Police in the above context is very material and relevant as it is this report which in the circumstances of this case contained the basic facts forming the grounds of detention. Since this report has not been supplied to the detenu, the valuable fundamental right to make an effective representation, as guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India has been snatched away. Since this report has not been supplied to the detenu, the valuable fundamental right to make an effective representation, as guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India has been snatched away. ( 18 ) IN the case of Khudi Ram Das v. State of West Bengal and others5, the Honble Court explained what is meant by grounds on which the order is made in the context of the duties cast upon the detaining authority and the corresponding rights according to the detenu under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. The court ruled that in that context the expression groundst does not merely mean a recital and the reproduction of grounds of satisfaction of the authority in the language of section 3, nor is its connotation restricted to a bare statement of fact but nothing less than all the basic facts and materials which influenced the detaining authority in making the order of detention and that is the plain requirement of the first safeguard in Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. ( 19 ) AGAIN what would be comprised in all the basic facts and materials has been elaborated by the Supreme Court in Smt. Icchu Devi Chorasia v. Union of India and ors. 6, by holding that the documents, statements and other materials referred or relied upon in the grounds of detention by the detaining authority in arriving at its subjective satisfaction got incorporated and becomes parts of the grounds of detention by reference and the right of the detenu to be supplied all such documents, statements and other materials flows directly as a necessary corollary from the right conferred on the detenu to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the detention, because unless the former is available the latter cannot be meaning fully exercised. ( 20 ) THUS, it is clear that the expression does not merely mean merely the recital of the ground of satisfaction of the detaining authority but it mean all the basic facts and materials which influenced the detaining authority in making the order of detention. Again, all the document statements and other materials referred to or relied upon in the grounds of detention by the detaining authority in arriving at its subjective satisfaction get incorporated and become part of the ground of detention by reference. Again, all the document statements and other materials referred to or relied upon in the grounds of detention by the detaining authority in arriving at its subjective satisfaction get incorporated and become part of the ground of detention by reference. ( 21 ) THUS, the failure to supply the relevant materials containing the basic facts forming the grounds of detention by the detaining authority to the detenu vitiates the order of detention. ( 22 ) IN the result, the present writ petition succeeds and we allow the same. The respondents are directed not to keep Amar Mani Tripathi detenu under detention any longer in pursuance of the detention order dated 17. 11. 1984 passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, under section 3 (2) of the National Security Act and affirmed by the State Government. It is made clear that if the petitioners detention is required under some other authority or law, the order passed by us shall not entitle him to be physically released. Petition, allowed. .