JUDGMENT : K.M.AGARWAL, J. ( 1. ) This habeas corpus petition under Art.226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is challenging the order of his detention passed on 20-1-1986 by the District Magistrate, Gwalior in exercise of his alleged powers under S.3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, (for short, "the Act"). ( 2. ) Asserting authority under S. 3(3) of the Act for exercise of powers under S. 3(2), the District Magistrate has passed the impugned order of detention on 20-1-1986, which is Annexure R-1. Let us, therefore, examine the provisions of sub-secs.(2) and (3) of S.3 of the Act. They are as follows : - "3(2). The Central Government or the State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained." Explanation:Not relevant. Hence, it is not reproduced. "3(3). If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may, by order in writing, direct, that during such period as may be specified in the order, such District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as provided in sub-sec.(2), exercise the powers conferred by the said sub-section : "Provided that the period specified in an order made by the State Government under this sub-section shall not in the first instance, exceed three months, but the State Government may, if satisfied as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend such order to extend such period, from time to time, by any period not exceeding three months at any one time." ( 3. ) close scrutiny of the said provisions would show that only the Central Government or the State Government is invested with powers to make an order of detention under sub-sec.(2), which can be exercised after satisfaction of necessity for making such an order against a person "with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community." A district Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police may also exercise the powers under S. 3(2), if the State Government directs him to do so by an order in writing in terms of S. 3 (3) of the Act. The powers can be exercised only during such period, not exceeding three months, as may be specified in the order. In other words, a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police has no inherent powers to make a detention order under S. 3(2) of the Act. His powers are dependent on making of an order in his favour by the State Government in accordance with S. 3(3), which provides that: - (i) Having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary to make an order under sub-section (3); (ii) it may, by order in writing direct that such District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also exercise the powers conferred by sub-sec. (2), if satisfied, as provided in the said sub-section; (iii) the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police may exercise powers of making a detention order under sub-sec. (2) only during such period as may be specified in the order made by the State Government under sub-sec (3); (iv) Provided that the period to be specified in an order made by the State Government under sub-sec. (3) does not exceed 3 months in the first instance; (v) but the State Government may, if satisfied as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend such order to extend such period from time to time by any period not exceeding 3 months at any one time. ( 4. (3) does not exceed 3 months in the first instance; (v) but the State Government may, if satisfied as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend such order to extend such period from time to time by any period not exceeding 3 months at any one time. ( 4. ) The impugned order of detention does not show existence of any order under S. 3(3) of the Act made by the State Government in favour of the District Magistrate, so as to justify his impugned order of detention passed against the petitioner. The documents furnished to the petitioner after his detention or those filed with the return also give no indication about existence of any such order passed by the State Government. The detention order would, therefore, appear to be ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction. But it was neither argued nor alleged in the petition that in the absence of an order under S. 3(3) of the Act from the State Government, the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of detention against the petitioner. The lacuna was detected by us while writing the order. We, therefore, afforded an opportunity to the respondents to produce the order of the State Government, if any, passed under S. 3(3) of the Act, because we considered it our duty to do so, besides our duty to protect the life and liberty of a subject from executive excesses, irrespective of the fact that the point was not raised or argued. The respondents, thereupon, filed certain Gazette notifications, published from time to time, which show general delegation of powers under S. 3(3) of the Act, made for the first time on 1-1-1981, in favour of all the district Magistrates in the State and continuous extensions after every three months by amending the order or notification previously made. The notifications do not mention any specific circumstance, which satisfied the Government about existence of the necessity to make an order under S. 3(3) of the Act. The notifications do not mention any specific circumstance, which satisfied the Government about existence of the necessity to make an order under S. 3(3) of the Act. In short, we are of the view that the orders made by the Government under S. 3(3) of the Act are not above challenge and as the petitioner was not made aware of the order, empowering the District Magistrate, at the relevant time, to make the impugned order of detention against him, he is naturally prejudiced in his defence and, therefore, the order deserves to be quashed. ( 5. ) In the result, this petition succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The impugned order of detention dt. 20-1-1986 (Annexure R-1) passed by the District Magistrate, Gwalior is quashed We direct that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith. We make no order as to costs. Petition allowed.