K. N. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges his detention under an order dated 27th August, 1984 made by the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, under section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. There are several grounds taken in the petition for challenging validity of the order of detention, but it is not necessary to refer to them since we find that there are four grounds which are sufficient to dispose of this petition. To appreciate these grounds it is necessary to notice few facts. ( 2 ) THE order of detention was made on 27th August, 1984, and it was based on subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This subjective satisfaction was founded on five incidents of murder and assault as contained in the grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner. Ground No. 1 relates to an incident alleged to have taken place on 6. 9. 1982 while ground No. 2 relates to an incident of 24-11-1982 and ground No. 3 refers to an incident dated 6. 9. 1982. Ground No. 4 relates to an incident of 27th July, 1983, while ground No. 5 relates to an incident alleged to have taken place on July 12, 1984. Out of the five grounds, four grounds relate to the incidents of 1982 and 1983 which are quite old and stale. If the petitioners detention was necessary so as to prevent him from indulging into similar activities for the purpose of maintaining public order, one would expect that the District Magistrate would have made an order of detention as early as 1982 or 1983, but the order of detention was passed on August 27, 1984. There was undue delay in making the detention order against the petitioner on the grounds Nos. 1 to 4. There was undue delay in making the detention order against the petitioner on the grounds Nos. 1 to 4. It would be reasonable to assume that the District Magistrate of Saharanpur, if he was genuinely and reasonably satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order, would have acted with greater promptitude in making the order of detention and the petitioner would not have been allowed to remain at large for such a long period of time for carrying on the activities which are alleged to be prejudicial to public order. For all these reasons the petitioners detention on grounds Nos. 1 to 4 is not sustainable. ( 3 ) AS regards ground No. 5, it relates to an incident which is alleged to have taken place on 12-7-1984. The petitioner is alleged to have kidnapped Sunil Yadav along with his associates from the verandah of the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur. The petitioner is alleged to have used force in taking away Sunil Yadav in a car. As a result of this incident the entire court compound was gripped with terror and fear. A report of this incident was lodged at the police station and during investigation Om Singh witness told the police that the petitioner was involved in the incident. This incident relates to a single act of kidnapping of an individual by the petitioner and his associates. By its own nature it has no potentiality to disturb the public peace and tranquility. A solitary incident directed against a particular individual even if it may cause scare temporarily in the locality cannot be held to affect public order. No material has been placed before the Court to show that this incident of kidnapping of Sunil Yadav had the potentiality to disturb the even life of the community. We are clearly of the opinion that the petitioners detention on ground No. 5 is not sustainable as the act alleged to have been committed by the petitioner does not relate to public order, instead it relates to law and order. ( 4 ) THE detention order dated 27. 6. 1984 was made by the District Magistrate on the basis of a police report. The Subinspector of Police submitted a detailed report to the District Magistrate through the Senior Superintendent of Police on 24. 8. ( 4 ) THE detention order dated 27. 6. 1984 was made by the District Magistrate on the basis of a police report. The Subinspector of Police submitted a detailed report to the District Magistrate through the Senior Superintendent of Police on 24. 8. 1984. The Senior Superintendent of Police forwarded the Sub-Inspectors report to the District Magistrate and on 27th August, 1984, the District Magistrate made the detention order. The incident narrated in the report of the Sub-Inspector was incorporated in the grounds by the District Magistrate, on the basis of which he made the order. On a comparison of the Sub-Inspectors report and the grounds served on the petitioner along with the detention order show that the District Magistrate did not apply his mind, instead he mechanically reproduced the police report verbatim in the grounds. The language and the formation of sentences in the grounds of detention are almost verbatim reproduction of the police report. In almost similar circumstances the Supreme Court in Jai Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, held the detention order illegal on the ground that the detention order reproduction of the report made by the police. In the instant case also the District Magistrate contained verbatim reproduced the proposal made by the Sub-Inspector verbatim which makes it abundantly clear that he did not apply his mind and passed the order mechanically. For this reason the detention order is vitiated. ( 5 ) THE detention order was made by the District Magistrate on 27th August, 1984, and it was served on him on July 1, 1985, almost after eleven months. If it was necessary to detain him, the authorities concerned should have acted with promptitude in serving the order and arresting the petitioner, but the authorities committed undue delay in the service of the order on the petitioner. The undue delay in the actual arrest after the detention order was made is sufficient to vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority as was held by the Supreme Court in Sh. Nizamuddin v. State of West Ben gal and Sh. Serajul v. State of West Ben gal. ( 6 ) WHENEVER there is unreasonable delay in arresting a detenu pursuant to the order of detention, the detaining authority must give reasons for the delay. In the instant case, the District Magistrate has made an attempt to explain the delay. Nizamuddin v. State of West Ben gal and Sh. Serajul v. State of West Ben gal. ( 6 ) WHENEVER there is unreasonable delay in arresting a detenu pursuant to the order of detention, the detaining authority must give reasons for the delay. In the instant case, the District Magistrate has made an attempt to explain the delay. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of this affidavit, the District Magistrate, (the detaining authority), has stated that he made the order of detention on 17. 8. 1984 directing the petitioners detention in District Jail, Saharanpur. The detention order was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur, for service on the petitioner. The petitioner could not be arrested as he was absconding and proceedings under sections 82/83 Cr. P. C. were initiated against him. This is the only explanation. The District Magistrate has, failed to place the relevant dates before the Court. We do not know on that date the detention order was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur, for service of the same on the petitioner. We further do not know when the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under sections 82/83 Cr. P. C. in the absence of relevant details it is not possible to accept the bald explanation for the delay. As noted earlier, the detention, order was made on 27. 8. 1984 and it was served on the petitioner in July, 1985, with a delay of about a year and no reasonable explanation is forthcoming from the respondents. Whenever, there is unreasonable delay in the execution of the order of detention, it is the duty of the detaining authority to place all relevant details to show that each and every effort was made to arrest the petitioner and that the authority acted with promptitude to serve the order on the detenu. In the instant case the explanation given by the detaining authority is not sufficient to sustain the order. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the petitioners detention is rendered illegal. We accordingly allow the petition and direct the respondents to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith unless required to be detained in some other case. Petition allowed. .