A. S. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner Bandu alias Babu son of Asghar resident of Mohalla Pathantola, Pahasu town, District Bulandshahr, at present residing at Mohalla Sarai Rahman, District Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) has challenged the order of his detention dated 15. 9. i 984 passed under section 3 (2) of the national Security Act by the District Magistrate Aligarh thereafter referred to as the detaining authority) On 15. 9. 1984 i. e. the date when the detention order was passed, the petitioner was already in jail. This order was, therefore, served on him on 16. 9. 1984. The detaining authority, however, reported about the detention order to the State Government on the date on which it was passed i. e. 15. 9. 1984. The State Government approved the petitioners detention on 22. 9. 1984 and communicated its approval to the petitioner on 26. 9. 1984. On the Same day i. e. on 26. 9. 1984 the State Government reported its approval to the Central Government also as required by section 3 (:- ) of the National Security Act. On 29. 9. 1984 the case of the petitioner was referred by the State Government to the Advisory Board also. ( 2 ) ON 5. 10. 1984 the petitioner made, representation challenging the order of, his detention which was rejected by the State Government on 17. 10. 1984. On the same date this rejection was also communicated to the petitioner. The Advisory Board to whom the case of the petitioner was referred gave hearing to the petitioner on 30. 10. 1984. This order was, however, confirmed by the State Government on 13. 11. 1984 after considering the report of the Advisory Board. ( 3 ) THE ground of detention which was served on the petitioner is that on 1. 8. 1984 at about 2 P. M. the petitioner and his associates were carrying Illegal arms and ammunitions in two stolen cars on the G. T. Road. While they passed in front of police station Banna Devi, they, were intercepted by a police party headed by Inspector Incharge of P. S, Banna Devi. On this the petitioner and his associates started firing indiscreetly on the police force which resulted into stoppage of traffic on that; National Highway. While they passed in front of police station Banna Devi, they, were intercepted by a police party headed by Inspector Incharge of P. S, Banna Devi. On this the petitioner and his associates started firing indiscreetly on the police force which resulted into stoppage of traffic on that; National Highway. The passengers of the vehicles plying on that road and the other passersby were all terror stricken and started running helter-skeltor for safety. The police party was, however, successful in arresting the petitioner and his associates. After their arrest, a knife was recovered from the possession of the petitioner besides a foreign make revolver, three country made pistols and a large number of cartridges (and a factory made gun) were recovered from his associates and their cars. ( 4 ) THREE cases were registered at the police station against them under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act. They were Crime Cases Nos. 382/84, 386/84 and 387/84. ( 5 ) A copy of the first information report lodged at the police station was also furnished to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has challenged his detention on the following two ground: (i) The act attributed to the petitioner in the incident dated 1. 8. 1984 does not bring him within the ambit of Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act because this incident does not relate to the Public Order. Further, even if the incident can be said to relate to Public Ordertt, the petitioner has not done any act which affected Public Order. The mere possession of a knife at the time of that incident cannot be deemed to be an act done by the petitioner affecting Public Order. For possession of that knife he could be amply punished under the Arms Act. (ii) The representation which the petitioner made on 5. 10. 1984 was not placed by the State Government before the Advisory Board within three weeks of the order of detention and consequently there has been a violation of Section 10 of the National Security Act which has rendered the detention of the petitioner illegal. ( 7 ) WE agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said act mentioned in Ground No. 1 above does not relate to Public Order. ( 7 ) WE agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said act mentioned in Ground No. 1 above does not relate to Public Order. In this connection we will refer to Ajay Dixit v. State of U. P. and others in which the detenu was detained on several grounds. Ground No. 2 was as under: That on date 27. 9. 82 at 3. 10 p. m. you collected goondas in your house in the town of Forozabad and when the police party reached in order to arrest the goondas you fired at the police party on which a case against you under S. 307/34 of Indian Penal Code is pending the trial in the court. After dealing Ground no. 1 of the detenu in that case, the Supreme Court referred to the remaining grounds, including Ground no. 2 mentioned above, in the following words: The other grounds mentioned in the detention order no doubt are also unfortunate and the conduct alleged of the detenu is reprehensible. Such conducts if true are net of such nature which could possibly endanger public order ( 8 ) IT has been urged on behalf of the State that Ground No. 2 in Ajay Dixits case was held to be not relating to public order because the detenu and his associates in that case had fired at the police when the police tried to arrest him and his associates at his house on 27. 9. 82 at 3. 10 p. m. where they had collected. In this case the police-party had intercepted the petitioner and his associates while they were going on a National Highway and the act of the petitioner and his associates had created panic and terror in the minds of the passengers of the other vehicles which were then on the road and who had to run helterskeltor for saving their lives after jumping from their vehicles. ( 9 ) IN our opinion the decision of Ajay Dixits case cannot be distinguished on this ground. No doubt in Ajay Dixits case, the detenu and his associates had collected in a house where the police party had gone there to arrest them and in this case, the petitioner and his associates were arrested on a National High way. While going in two cars with illegal arms. But one thing is common. No doubt in Ajay Dixits case, the detenu and his associates had collected in a house where the police party had gone there to arrest them and in this case, the petitioner and his associates were arrested on a National High way. While going in two cars with illegal arms. But one thing is common. As in the case of Ajay Dixit, the petitioner and his associates had fired at the police party when it intercepted them and were trying to arrest them with an object of making good their escape by scaring them away. The petitioner and his associates had not launched a premediated assault on the police party in fulfilment of some plan of disturbing the even tempo of the life of the community. It was rather directed merely to scare from arrest. It is also significant to note that no member of the police party had received even a scratch before they became successful in arresting the petitioner and his party.- Even if the passengers of other vehicles which happened to be on the road at that time had become panicky or terror stricken, it cannot be inferred that the acts of the petitioner and his associates were directed to anyone of them. Their acts were in their effect clearly confined only to the party of the police directly involved in capturing them while they were going in their cars on the National High way with arms and ammunitions kept therein. The length, magnitude and intensity of the terror were unleashed by the firing of the party of the petitioner on such passengers could not in any way lead to the disturbance of the current life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order. The firing by the party of the petitioner were not even directed to such passengers but were con tined only to few persons belonging to the police force who were engaged in apprehending them. The members of the police party were clearly distinguishable from the wider spectrum of the public. We are, therefore, of the view that principles laid down in Ajay Dixits case are applicable to the facts of this case also. The members of the police party were clearly distinguishable from the wider spectrum of the public. We are, therefore, of the view that principles laid down in Ajay Dixits case are applicable to the facts of this case also. Consequently we do not agree with the learned counsel for the State that the firing by the party of the petitioner at the police party in the Circumstances mentioned above was not an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The criminal courts set up for administration of justice will take care Of acts of the party of the petitioner arrested by the police party on a National High way on 1. 8. . 1984 with illegal arms and ammunition. They however do not justify the dentention of the petitioner under section 3 (2) of the National Security Act. ( 10 ) THE order of the detention of the petitioner is illegal on the second ground also taken by the petitioner in this case. The petitioner challenged his detention by means of a representation made on 510. 1984. The case of the petitioner was already referred to the Advisory Board by the State Government on 29. 9. 1984. Section 10 National Security Act prescribes a period of three weeks from the date of detention of a detenue during which the State has to make a reference to the Advisory Board. In this case the period of three weeks expired on 11. 10. 84. The reference made by the State Government on 29. 9. 1984 was therefore within the period prescribed by section 10. But the representation of the petitioner which was made on 5. 10. 1984 and which could also have been placed before the Advisory Board on or before 11. 10. 1984 does not seem to have been placed before the Advisory Board at all. We have examined the affidavits filed in this case by Shri Panna Lal Puniya, detaining authority and Shri Vishnu Sahai, Upper Division Assistant of U. P. Secretariat. The petitioner has taken this ground in paragraph 10 of the affidavit of his petition in the following words: That section 10 of the National Security Act has been violated because the State Government has not within three weeks from the date of detention placed it before the Advisory Board. The petitioner has taken this ground in paragraph 10 of the affidavit of his petition in the following words: That section 10 of the National Security Act has been violated because the State Government has not within three weeks from the date of detention placed it before the Advisory Board. ( 11 ) IN paragraph 7 of his affidavit, the detaining authority has stated that the contents of paragraph 10 of the petitioners affidavit shall be suitably replied by the State Government. The affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government is, however, silent on this point. It is, therefore, reasonable. to infer from these affidavits that the representation dated 5. 10. 1984 by the petitioner was not placed before the Advisory Board even though it was made by the petitioner well before the expiry of the expiry of three weeks prescribed by Section 10 of the Act. It is now well settled that the provisions of Section 10 are mandatory and non-compliance thereof renders the detention illegal. The latest decision on the point is Faishal Mallik v. State of U. P. and others2 The State Government was, therefore, under and obligation placed by Section 10 to place before the Advisory Board the representation of the petitioner also within the period stipulated in section 10. Since that has not been done the detention of the petitioner is illegal and is vitiated. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the State that section 10 places a duty on the State Government to send the representation of a detenue only when it is with the State on the date when it refers his case before the Advisory Board. In this case reference was made to the Advisory Board on. 29. 9. 1984. On that date the petitioners representation was not in existence. Therefore, the State Government was under on obligation to send the same to the Advisory Board when it was made subsequently. In Paishal Malliks case (supra), the representation of the detenu was in existence on the date when his case was placed before the Advisory Board. 29. 9. 1984. On that date the petitioners representation was not in existence. Therefore, the State Government was under on obligation to send the same to the Advisory Board when it was made subsequently. In Paishal Malliks case (supra), the representation of the detenu was in existence on the date when his case was placed before the Advisory Board. ( 12 ) WE do not agree with the above contention of the learned counsel for the State Section 10 of the National security Act reads as under: Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, in every case where a detention order has been, made under this Act, the appropriate Government shall, within three weeks from the date of detention of a person under the order, place before the Advisory Board constituted by it under Section 9, the grounds on which the Order has been made and the representation, if any, made by the person, affected by the order, and incase where the order has been made by an officer mentioned in sub-section (3) of section 3, also the report by such officer under section (4) of that section. ( 13 ) THIS section places a duty of the appropriate Government to place before the Advisory Board within three weeks from, the date of detention (i) grounds of detention (ii) the representation, if any, made by the detenu and (iii) report of the detaining authority, It is clear from the section itself that the State is under a duty to send the representation of the detune also to the Advisory Board if made for challenging his detention. The word if any does not mean that the duty of the State to forward the representation comes to an end if it is not in existence on the date when it places the other papers pertaining the detention of detenu. After receiving the grounds of detention etc. no time is prescribed for the detenu to challenge his detention by means of a representation. In a case where the detaining authority places the papers pertaining to a detention before the Advisory Board on the very next day of detention, there will be no occasion for him to forward the representation of the detenu also to the Advisory Board. In this manner the very object of section 10 will be defeated. Rather in some cases it can designedly be defeated. In this manner the very object of section 10 will be defeated. Rather in some cases it can designedly be defeated. This cannot be the intention of section 10. An examination of this section in this light leaves no room for doubt that the word and used before the expression the representation if anyt has to be understood conjunctively. The State Government is, therefore, under obligation to forward the representation of a detenu also to the Advisory Board within the period stipulated under section 10 if made within that period even though it was not in existence when the grounds of his detention and other papers pertaining to his detention was placed before the Advisory Board. It will not be out of place to refer to a decision dated 16. 3. 1984 of a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 13987 of i983, Gama alias Lambu v. State and others in which it has been held that the duty placed on the appropriate Government by section 10 is not confined only to the first representation made by a detenu. It extends even to the successive representation also, if made during period stipulated by Section 10. ( 14 ) IN the result, we find that the order of detention of the petitioner is vitiated on the grounds mentioned above. This petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed not to keep the petitioner under detention in pursuance of the order dated 15. 9. 1984 passed under Section 3 of the National Security Act by the District Magistrate, Aligarh. It is, however, made clear that the petitioners detention, if otherwise required under some other authority of law, the order passed by us today shall not entitle him to be physically released. Detention order set aside. .