S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who is detained under the National Security Act 1980 (NASA for short) has brought in challenge the order of his preventive detention. The impugned order is dated 4-4-1986. It is at annexure A to the petition. The District Magistrate Banaskantha who has passed this order has recited in the said order that he is satisfied with respect to the petitioner that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it is necessary to make the order of detention against him. The grounds of detention of even date were supplied to the petitioner both in English as well as in Gujarati. Both these versions have been signed by the detaining authority. We therefore can treat these as original grounds of detention. . . . . . . . . . ( 2 ) MR. H. L. Patel for the petitioner raised various contentions in support of the petition. However it is not necessary to refer to them as in our view this petition is required to be allowed on the short ground that there is no material whatsoever which can be legally relied upon by the detaining authority for supporting the detention order on the allegation that the detenus activities have affected public order at the relevant time and on the basis of which he was required to be preventively detained under the NASA. So far as the aforesaid ground is concerned it becomes necessary to have a look at the grounds of detention in support of the detention order which were supplied to the detenu with a view to finding out whether any legally permissible material in this connection can be traced from these grounds of detention. The first six paras of the grounds of detention refer to individual cases of assault and other crimes alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in company of his associates under different provisions of I. P. Code. The involvement of the petitioner has been inferred from these criminal acts committed from time to time either by the alleged associates of the petitioner through his instigation or upon by the petitioner in company of his associates. But none of them indicates any concrete instance where the public order was affected by any of the alleged crimes committed by the petitioner and/or his associates. But none of them indicates any concrete instance where the public order was affected by any of the alleged crimes committed by the petitioner and/or his associates. However incident No. 6 mentioned in the grounds of detention refers to an assault mounted by the petitioner and his associates at 10 Oclock on the night of 30-3-1986 on complainant Shantilal and his associates for which a criminal case was registered being Sl. No. 68 of 1986 under secs. 307 147 148 and 149 of the I. P. Code and sec. 130 of the Bombay Police Act. The said complaint was registered with the Palanpur City Police Station. It could have been urged with some emphasis that when at 10 O clock night on 30-3-1986 the petitioner and his associates assaulted at a public place rival group of Hindus and assistance of bomb was also taken and it was hurled on the group of victims public order in the locality would certainly have been adversely affected. However so far as the detaining authority is concerned he has not considered this incident to be one on the basis of which he was satisfied that public order was affected by that incident itself. On the contrary in his view it was not the incident which affected the public order but what transpired subsequent to this incident only furnished the basis for his satisfaction underlying the detention order. The English version of the grounds in this connection which is also as noted earlier is the original grounds of detention supplied to the detenu under the signature of the detaining authority is worth nothing at this stage. For the incident of 30-3-1986 this is what the detaining authority has mentioned in the grounds of detention in English furnished to the detenu under his signature: 9 On 30-3-1986 at 22. 00 hrs. you and your gang members had assaulted on Shri Kantilal Kachoriya and Shri Lalitbhai Devchandbhai Padhiar by throwing an allegedly explosive material and beat Shri Lalitbhai Padhiar by iron pipe and caused him inquiry. For which offence under secs. 307 147 148 149 of I. P. Code and under sec. 135 of B. P. Act has been registered vide Palanpur Police Station C. R. Ns. 68 of 1986 against you and your companion. For which offence under secs. 307 147 148 149 of I. P. Code and under sec. 135 of B. P. Act has been registered vide Palanpur Police Station C. R. Ns. 68 of 1986 against you and your companion. Consequent to these incidents of assault and riot on Hindu people have occurred Soon after the 30th March night incident a series of incidents have taken place endangering public safety and the fire of commudal frenzy is raging the town. You have thus disturbed the public order and public peace of society by your communal excitements. ( 3 ) THE aforesaid version regarding incident of night of 30-3-1986 as put up by the detaining authority himself shows that he had passed the order of detention on being satisfied about the disturbance of public order by the petitioners nefarious activities not or account of incident of night of 30-3-1986 but on account of subsequent incidents or assault and rioting on Hindu people that occurred soon after 30-3-1986. A question therefore immediately arises as to whether there is any material on record of the detaining authority about the petitioners involvement in any of the incidents that might have taken place after night of 30-3-1986 which would have affected public order and public safety. So far as this most important question is concerned we requested Mr. Dave learned P. P. to point out from the record before the detaining authority any material which suggests or shows that any incident had taken place involving the petitioner after the night of 30 which had disturbed public order and whether any riot had taken place subsequent to 30-3-1986 wherein the petitioner was involved. He candidly stated by after looking at the relevant record. that there is no other material on record to show that after the incident of night of 30-3-1986 wherein the petitioner was involved any other incident had taken place which had affected public order and it had let loose the communal riots showing involvement of the petitioner in any of these incidents consequently it must be held that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority for passing the impugned order of detention against the petitioner on the basis that the petitioner was involved in series of incidents soon after 30-3-1986 night incident which had disturbed public safety and had let loose wild fire of communal frenzy was based on no material whatsoever. ( 4 ) ONCE that conclusion is reached the detention order would automatically fall through. However Mr. Dave for the respondents tried to salvage the situation by submitting that under sec. 5-A of the NASA if the subjective satisfaction fails on any one ground it can be supported by any other legally permissible ground. In our view reference to sec. 5-A of the NASA cannot be of any avail to the respondents on the facts of the present case. The material which we have uptil now considered as reflected by the grounds of detention at the highest points out only one incident of 30-3-1986 which could have been pressed in service by the detaining authority as an incident from which a rational inference could have been drawn about the disturbance of public order by involvement of the petitioner. However unfortunately for the respondents the detaining authority himself has not considered this incident to be grave enough to furnish by itself any data indicating disturbance of public order by that incident itself. Once the detaining auth-ority himself in his wisdom has not relied upon this incident by itself to base his subjective satisfaction about the disturbance of public order flowing from this incident it is not open to us to re-write his order and say that despite what he has observed in connection with this incident it should be declared to have disturbed public order and should be taken to have been relied upon by the detaining authority for supporting the detention order. If the detaining authority had remained silent on this incident perhaps the learned P. P. would have been able to justifiably lean on sec. 5-A to resurrect the detention order in that basis. But that exercise on the peculiar wordings of the grounds of detention is not open to the respondents Mr. Dave then invited our attention to the statements of six respectable citizens of the town which had shown involvement of the petitioner in the nefarious activities which had affected the public order at relevant time. So far as statements of these six witnesses are concerned names and addresses of these witnesses have not been communicated to the petitioner. Mr. Dave then invited our attention to the statements of six respectable citizens of the town which had shown involvement of the petitioner in the nefarious activities which had affected the public order at relevant time. So far as statements of these six witnesses are concerned names and addresses of these witnesses have not been communicated to the petitioner. Mr. Patel for the petitioner therefore vehemently contended that the material contained in these six statements of unnamed persons cannot be relied upon against the petitioner for passing the detention order as this material would be totally vague and would affect the petitioners fundamental right under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of making an effective representation against such vague material and therefore this material being vague and invalid shall have to be excluded while considering the efficacy of the detention order. It must be kept in view that under Article 22 (6) of the Constitution as well 85 under sec. 8 (2) of the NASA it is open to the detaining authority not to disclose facts which he considers against public interest to disclose to the detenu. ( 5 ) LET us therefore see whether in the facts of the present case the detaining authority has undertaken this exercise and has been satisfied that names and addresses of these six persons should not be communicated to the detenu in public interest. If he has done so validly then of course no grievance can be made by the petitioner that the material supplied to him in connection with these statements of six persons is invalid or defective being violative of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. With that end in view when we turn to the grounds of detention we find that all that is stated in the grounds of detention in this connection is to the effect that even though no one was prepared to say in public against the detenu who was a head strong person six respectable citizens had given evidence regarding the anti-social and communal activities of the petitioner being tired of them subject to the condition that their names should not be disclosed. This is the only assertion made in the grounds of detention in connection with withholding of names and addresses of the six witnesses from the petitioner. This is the only assertion made in the grounds of detention in connection with withholding of names and addresses of the six witnesses from the petitioner. These averments only mention the factual position that evidence has been given by six respectable citizens subject to the condition that their names should not be disclosed. But they nowhere indicate that the detaining authority himself was satisfied that these names and addresses were required to be withheld from the detenu in public interest. As that satisfaction is not at all mentioned in the grounds it must; be held that as such satisfaction was arrived at by the detaining authority at the relevant time when it decided to withhold these names and addresses of six citizens from the petitioner. However an attempt has been made in the affidavit-in-reply to indicate under what Circumstances these names and addresses were withheld from the detenu In para 15 of the affidavit the detaining authority states that names and addresses of the persons who have given statements against the petitioner could not be supplied to him for the simple reason that they have come forward conditionally not to disclose their names as they disclosure. The action of the detaining authority in not supplying the names and addresses of the said persons is quite legal and proper for reason mentioned hereinabove. It has been further stated that he has not only relied on the bare assertion of the said persons but has satisfied himself keeping in view the evidence on record and the history of the case of the detenu that there was danger to the lives of these persons in case of disclosure of their names to the detenu and further that non-disclosure of the said names would be in the public interest. It has been further stated that if their names are disclosed it would amount to breach of trust and no one else would come forward in public in future to give statement against such type of person. It has been further stated that if their names are disclosed it would amount to breach of trust and no one else would come forward in public in future to give statement against such type of person. To say the least the aforesaid explanation given in the affidavit-in-reply no where suggests as to how the detaining authority came to the conclusion that it was in public interest to withhold these names save and except baldly saying that non-disclosure was in public interest A close reading of the averments found in para 15 of the affidavit-in-reply shows two reasons which weighed with the detaining authority for withholding these names and addresses; (1) the witnesses were apprehending danger to their persons and properties from the petitioner and therefore they had requested for keeping their names and addresses a close secret from the petitioner and (2) if names and addresses were disclosed it would amount to breach of trust. None of these grounds by themselves can be said to fall legitimately within the concept of withholding of material in public interest as envisaged by sec. 8 (2) of the Act or for that matter by Article 22 (6) of the Constitution. These grounds pertain to the feeling of the persons promised of confidentiality and the need to fulfil such promise. It must therefore be held that the detaining authority was not genuinely satisfied in public interest about the need to withhold names and addresses of six witnesses from the detenu at the time when he passed the impugned order of detention supported by relevant grounds. As there was no such genuine satisfaction it must be held that no legal privilege was available to the detaining authority enabling it to withhold the said material from the detenu. Still such material was withheld. Consequently. their maining material which was supplied to the petitioner in the shape of statements of unnamed persons and unknown persons became vulnerable as vague material which could not permit the petitioner to make an affective representation against the detention order based on such vague and imperssible material. Hence the material comprised in these six statements has to be ruled out while considering the efficacy of the detention order as passed against the petitioner. Hence the material comprised in these six statements has to be ruled out while considering the efficacy of the detention order as passed against the petitioner. If this material comprised in the statements of six persons is taken out there is nothing left on the record of this case to support the detention order and which can be pressed in service in the light of sec. 5-A of the NASA by the respondents to salvage the situation. (The rest of the Judgment is not material for the reports.) order quashed; Rule made absolute .