A. S. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) ASHOK Kumar Dixit alias Babban son of Sri Sita Ram Dixit, resident of 35/119, Bengali Mohal, P. S. Kotwali, Kanpur has, by means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenged the order dated 11. 7. 1984 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the detaining authority) under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act and approved by the State Government on 19. 7. 1984. ( 2 ) THE order of detention dated 11. 7. 1984 could not be given effect to before 9. 3. 1985 because the petitioner was during this period absconding and could not be arrested earlier despite all efforts. ( 3 ) ON 20. 3. 1985 the petitioner made a representation against his detention which was received by the State Government on 23. 3. 1985. The State Government placed his representation before the Advisory Board on 27. 3. 1985. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by the State Government on 1. 4. 1985. Its rejection was communicated to the petitioner on 2. 4. 1985. This order was received by the petitioner on 9. 4. 1985. The Advisory Board gave a hearing to the petitioner on 17. 4. 1985. After considering the recommendations of the Advisory Board, the State Government confirmed the detention of the petitioner on 2. 5. 1985. ( 4 ) THE grounds on which the detention order of the petitioner was passed as communicated to him are as under: - (1) On 8. 4. 1983 at about 6. 45 P. M. while Satya Prakash was getting the cassette of his Car No. U. S. F. 5059 repaired in Bhusa Toli, Toliana Road, P. S. Harbansh Mohal, the petitioner along with his four associates reached there in his Car No. U. T. D. 3529 and on the exhortation of Ramesh Tewari, he, his associate Munnu Sarangi and two unknown persons fired and injured Satya Prakash with fire-arms and escaped thereafter in his car towards Toliana. Satya Prakash succumbed to his injuries before he could reach the hospital. A report of this incident was registered on the same day at P. S. Harbansh Mohal as Crime Case No. 117/83 under Section 302 I. P. C. in which a charge-sheet has also been submitted against the petitioner after investigation. (2) On 8. 6. 1984 at about 7. Satya Prakash succumbed to his injuries before he could reach the hospital. A report of this incident was registered on the same day at P. S. Harbansh Mohal as Crime Case No. 117/83 under Section 302 I. P. C. in which a charge-sheet has also been submitted against the petitioner after investigation. (2) On 8. 6. 1984 at about 7. 00 P. M. the petitioner along with 14 others, which included Han Shankar Bajpai, Babloo, Prem Narain Shukla and Kedar Nath Shukla, went in a jeep to the Ahata of M. P. Mill Udyog, Sarvodaya Nagar, P. S. Kakadeo, Kanpur, armed with weapons including fire-arms and started dismantling hutments of the locality. When protested by the inhabitants, they were fired at, out of them, Raj Kumar Singh, Somnath, Udai Raj Gupta, Baldeo Singh and Shyam Saran Singh were injured. On hearing the reports of this firing, some policemen and some members of public reached there who surrounded the party of the petitioner and captured three of them viz, the petitioner, Han Shanker Bajpai and Babloo. The others, however, made good their escape. The arrested petitioner and his two associates were found in possession of pistols and cartridges. A report about this incident was registered on 8. 6. 1984 at P. S. Kakadeo as Crime Case No. 216/84 under Sections 147/148/307 I. P. C. Since on 9. 6. 1984 one of the injured Udai Raj Gupta succumbed to his injuries, section 302 I. P. C. was also added to this case registered at the police station. ( 5 ) THE men contention on which the detention of the petitioner is challenged is that one of the two grounds mentioned above relate to public order. ( 6 ) WE agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner in so far as ground No. 1 is concerned because in the incident of this ground the acts of the petitioner and his associates were directed against an individual viz. Satya Prakash and were committed for taking private vengeance. It was not of such a nature which could disturb the even tempo of the community of that locality. This incident had not raised any problem of public order justifying the petitioners detention under the National Security Act. But the something cannot be said about the incident of Ground No. 2. Satya Prakash and were committed for taking private vengeance. It was not of such a nature which could disturb the even tempo of the community of that locality. This incident had not raised any problem of public order justifying the petitioners detention under the National Security Act. But the something cannot be said about the incident of Ground No. 2. The petitioners M. P. Mill Udyog with 14 others, all armed with fire-arms and other weapons, and demolishing the hutments situate in that compound were acts not directed towards any individual or individuals for breaking private vengeance. The victims of their activities on that day were inhabitants of those hutments situate in that particular locality. The party of the petitioner did not stop at the demolition of the hutments but they further indulged in want on firing at those who tried to pretest and caused injuries to five such persons one of whom viz. Udai Raj Gupta, subsequently succumbed to his injuries on 9. 6. 1984. The persons living in the hutments dismantled and those injured had no enmity with the petitioner. The petitioner and his two associates were captured on the spot by those who had reached there on hearing the reports of firing by the petitioner and his associates. The nature and quality of these activities of the petitioner leave no room for doubt that the incident directed towards the inhabitants of a group of hutments situate in the compound of M. P. Mill Udyog was motivated, not by any personal animosity towards them but to generate terror-tremors in them. Their hutments were dismantled for no fault of their. Their protests were met with firing resulting into injuries to five persons one of whom died subsequently as a result of the injuries received by him. We have no doubt in our minds that the petitioners activities committed on 8. 6. 1984 in the compound of M. P. Mill Udyog were bound to have an impact upon the local community or, to put it in the words of Hidayatullah C. ]. in Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal1, disturb the even tempo of the life of the community of that specified locality. In other words, the activities of the petitioner in this incident were clearly subversive of public order and not merely of law and order. in Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal1, disturb the even tempo of the life of the community of that specified locality. In other words, the activities of the petitioner in this incident were clearly subversive of public order and not merely of law and order. ( 7 ) NO doubt the petitioner has given a counter version of the incident for explaining his presence at the time of the incident by lodging a report registered as Crime Case No. 216-A/84 at the police station alleging that on 8. 6. 1984 when he along with his family was returning in a jeep after attending a function at Naramau Cold Storage Kanpur, he passed the Jagran Press at about 6. 00 P. M. and noticed a crowd indulging in riotous activities. This mob attacked the petitioner also. When so attacked, the petitioner and his family members got down from the jeep. Thereafter the mob set fire to his jeep. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to this version, the petitioner was not among the persons who had indulged into activities of dismantling of hutments in the compound of M. P. Mill Udyog followed by firing at the inhabitants of that locality by those who had dismantled the hutments. But this does not challenge the truth of incident of this ground No. 2. The petitioner has merely denied his participation in that incident but not his presence. He has, however, tried to explain his presence probably with the object of explaining his arrest at the spot. In this version he has also complained of the burning of his jeep by a mob without rhyme or reason. It will be seem that according to his version also, the petitioner was present at the place of incident and had to face the fury of a mo b generated by the dismantiling of the hutments followed by firing. After his arrest, firearms were recovered from him also. ( 9 ) THE petitioner has also placed reliance on another report of the same incident filed by another co-accused of the incident of this Ground No. 2, namely Kedar Nath Shukla. This report lodged by Kedar Nath Shukla was registered at the police station as Crime Case No. 216-A/84 on the same date at 11. ( 9 ) THE petitioner has also placed reliance on another report of the same incident filed by another co-accused of the incident of this Ground No. 2, namely Kedar Nath Shukla. This report lodged by Kedar Nath Shukla was registered at the police station as Crime Case No. 216-A/84 on the same date at 11. 00 P. M. This report giving another version of the incident is not relevant in so far as the petitioner is concerned who has, in his version, denied his participation in the same. However, according to this second version, the co-accused, Kedar Nath Shukla had accompanied one Dr. Rajdan to the place of incident for taking possession of some land with the help of police and K. D. A. (Kanpur Development Authority ). According to his, they had taken possession of the land and when the police left, a crowd assembled there which attacked them with brick-bats, iron-rods and also fired at them. It is to noticed that, according this, version also, the police was not there when the incident had taken place and the incident followed not the dismantling of any hutments etc. but taking possession of land by one Dr. Rajdan. Further, it is they who were attacked and fired by the mob although they had taken peaceful possession of the land through police. But there are some facts which cannot be ignored while considering this report. According to this report, Kedar Nath Shukla and others were un-armed and it was they who were attacked by a crowd with brick-bats, iron-rods and fire-arms. But there is no allegation of anyone having received even a scratch. Then, Kedar Nath Shukla and his part had obtained peaceful possession of the land with the help of the police but it transpires that the petitioner and others were arrested by the police. Besides these facts, this version has nowhere tried to explain (i) the dismantiling of the hutments and (U) the receipt of firearm injuries by five persons in that incident -one of whom actually succumbed to these injuries. ( 10 ) THEN, some facts emerging from the above two reports lodged at the police station by the petitioner as well as the coaccused Kedar Nath Shukla also deserve notice. These are (a) on incident did take place on 8. 6. ( 10 ) THEN, some facts emerging from the above two reports lodged at the police station by the petitioner as well as the coaccused Kedar Nath Shukla also deserve notice. These are (a) on incident did take place on 8. 6. 1984 in the compound of M. P. Mill Udyog, (b) the presence of neither the petitioner nor Kedar Nath Shukla at the aforesaid time and place was not in the normal course of their business (c) these versions of the two reports are the attempt of their authors to explain their presence at the place and time of the incident. ( 11 ) THEN, inspite of the difference in the versions about the inspection of the incident, it is a fact that the petitioner and the co-accused Kedar Nath Shukla were arrested at the place of incident and their arrest was as equal to mob fury following violence in which five persons inhabiting that locality has received fire-arm injuries and one of them died also. The incident was sparked by the taking possession of some land with which at least the petitioner had no connection. Still he was arrested by the police along with other as a person involved in that incident and his arrest was followed by recovery of pistols and cartridges from the arrested persons. ( 12 ) WE will now examine the petitioners contention that his detention is rendered illegal because his report (containing his version) and the report of Kedar Nath Shukla (containing his version) were Hot placed before the detaining authority at the time when he ordered the petitioners detention. Consideration of this contention necessarily entails a judicial scrutiny of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority on which the impugned order is founded. While making such a judicial scrutiny this Court cannot ignore the facts emerging from the materials placed before the Court and which were not before the detaining authority. It is only when in such a scrutiny the nature of any document or material is found to be capable of influencing the requisite satisfaction of the detaining authority it will be said to be a material of vital nature. If such vital material was not placed before the detaining authority at the time of passing the order of detention, the detention got vitiated. If such vital material was not placed before the detaining authority at the time of passing the order of detention, the detention got vitiated. But if the maternal not placed before the detaining authority is found to be not of such a nature, the detention would not become illegal if it was not before him when he passed the order. ( 13 ) IN the instant case the facts already stated above leave no room for doubt that the two reports of the incident lodged at the police station by the petitioner and his co-accused were not documents of vital nature i. e. they could not have led the detaining authority to a different satisfaction. It is well settled that every case presents facts peculiar to it and it is in the setting or concatenation of these facts that the question is examined. It is after examining the two reports in setting of the facts already stated above, we find them to be documents of no consequence. In fact the principle that all materials relevant to an incident must be placed before the detaining authority cannot be stressed too for so as to make it an easy course for a person to indulge in activities subversive of public order and then avoid this consequences by adding a report containing another version or mere denial of participation in such an incident. Therefore, before application of this principle this Court has in each case to scrutinize, as we have done in this case, the nature of such reports. ( 14 ) AS seen above, the incident of Ground No. 2 relates to public order and the petitioners detention on this ground is not vitiated on the ground that reports of the petitioner and the co-accused Kedar Nath Shukla were not before the detaining authority when he passes the impugned order. Therefore, the petitioners detention on this ground is justified. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .