D. S. BAJPAI, J. ( 1 ) RAJIV Hazra has filed writ petition No 6522 of 1985 under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus directing the opposite parties to produce the body of the petitioner at the bar of the Court and set him at liberty after quashing the impugned order of detention dated November 27, 1985 passed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow, contained in annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. The petition was presented before a Division Bench of this Court on 11th December, 1985 and the Bench directed the opposite parties to file their return by 18th December, 1985 when the case was to be listed before the Court. Kamal Kishore Saini has preferred writ petition No. 6823 of 1985 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for directing the release of the petitioner detained under the provisions of the National Security Act and quashing the order of detention dated November 28, 1985 passed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow, contained in annexure-1 to the writ petition. This petition was presented before a Division Bench of this Court on 20th December, 1985 which directed its listing for the purposes of hearing in the week commencing 27th January, 1986 and the parties were, in the meantime, allowed opportunity to exchange counter and rejoinder affidavits. Since the detention order contained in annexre-1 to the two writ petitions is identical and similar as also passed on the same three grounds we have heard arguments in the two petitions together and propose to decide them by a common judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner in writ petition No. 6522 of 1985, Shri A. Mannan and Shri Virendra Bhatia appearing for the petitioner in writ petition No. 6823 of 1985, as also Shri Bireshwar Nath, Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondents have been heard by us at a considerable length. The learned counsel for the petitioner in writ petition No. 6522 of 1985, Shri A. Mannan and Shri Virendra Bhatia appearing for the petitioner in writ petition No. 6823 of 1985, as also Shri Bireshwar Nath, Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondents have been heard by us at a considerable length. The grounds of detention supplied as indicated in the impugned orders of detention filed as annexure respectively to the two writ petitions in purported exercise of the powers under subsection (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (Act No. 65 of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), briefly indicated, as supplied to the detenus under the provisions of) Section 8 of the Act are as under: 1 That on 4th June, 1985 one Jeet Narain Awasthi, resident of Indira Nagar, Police Station Ghazipur, Lucknow lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Ghazipur that on the night of 415th June, 1985 his younger brother Vishnu Narain Awasthi at about 20 hours had left to sleep in house No. 2040 of Indira Nagar, Lucknow occupied by Shri R. S. Raghuvanshi since Shri Raghuvanshi had gone out to Jaunpur, his home town and had entrusted custody of his house to the said Vishnu Narain Awasthi At 11. 00 in the night some persons informed the complainant that his brother had been shot by certain persons and when the complainant reached the spot he found Vishnu Narain Awasthi lying in a pool of blood and he had already died. It is alleged that on the basis of the said F. I. R. on 4th June, 1985 crime No. 101 of 1985 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the Ghazipur Police Station against un known accused. The names of the detenus, it is said, figured during investigation and the charge-sheet bas been submitted in the concerned court which in pending trial. ( 2 ) THAT on 13th June, 1985 one Baldeo Prasad Awasthi, resident of Ismailganj, Police Station Ghazipur, Lucknow lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Alambagh, Lucknow that his son Ram Kumar and his son-in-law Nand Kishore had gone to meet an accused in the district jail where the complainant also reached at about 1. 30 P. M. but they could not meet the accused. 30 P. M. but they could not meet the accused. Ram Kumar and Nand Kishore proceeded towards home on one rickshaw while the other rickshaw was being occupied by the complainant. When they reached - a little distance from the jail, near the residence of the Jail Superintendent, at about 1. 45 P. M. Rajiv Hazra and Kamal Kishore Saini, the two detenus and one Anadi Shukla, said to be an accomplice of one Ram Gopal came on a scooter, stopped it and challenged Ram Kumar, Nand Kishore and the complainant and fired at them. The complainant as also Ram Kumar and Nand Kishore ran helter and skater when the accused are said to have chased Ram Kumar for about 200 steps and fired twice or thrice as a consequence of which Ram Kumar fell dead on the spot and Nand Kishore as also the rickshaw puller and the complainant sustained injuries. On this basis crime No. 222 of 1985 under Section 302/307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered on 13th June, 1985 at about 14. 30 hours at Police Station Alambagh, Lucknow in which both the petitioners and Anadi Shukla were named. After investigation a charge sheet has been submitted to the court which is pending consideration. ( 3 ) THAT on 16th August, 1985 at about 14. 10 hours Head Constable 129 C. P. Balram Pandey of the Reserve Police Lines, Lucknow lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Qaiserbagh, Lucknow that on the same day he was on duty along with other policemen in the Judicial Lock-up, Collectorate. Lucknow. It was alleged that the complainant accompanied by other policemen on duty were bringing back accused after their production in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow both the detenus (Petitioners) proceeded towards an accused, Vijay Pratap Singh whereupon Vijay Pratap Singh, in panic, tried to retract and turned back when Rajiv Hazra is said to have given a call that it was appreciate time to finish the enemy who was before them as a result of which both the detenus took out their pistols and Kamal Kishore Saini, the detenu, with the intention of killing Vijay Pratap Singh fired at him which resulted in injuries to him and since this incident took place in the court compound people ran hither and thither and an atmosphere of terror spread over the area. On the basis of this F. I. R. crime No. 450 of 1985 under Section 30/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the Qaiserbagh Police Station on 16th August, 1985 and after investigation the charge sheet has been submitted which is under consideration. TI 2. It appears that on the aforesaid three grounds the District Magistrate after further consideration of the fact that since the two detenus in the respective petition had filed applications for bail and that the applications for bail which were pending before the Court and which, he felt, he was confident would be allowed led him to record his satisfaction that on their release from Jail they would participate in activities prejudicial to maintenance of public order. The order contained a usual recital regarding the right of the detenus to make representation to the State Government and also indicating that the matter would go before the Advisory Board where he would be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the two writ petitions that in as far as ground 1 of the impugned detention order is concerned the detenus were not afforded fair and reasonable opportunity of making an effective representation before the State Government under Section to of the Act inasmuch as they were not supplied any document in support of the ground except the first information reports and copies of extract charge-sheet submitted in the two cases which were not accompanied by any other document or documents. It has been pointed out that the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are a part of the charge-sheet and are accompanied by the name, were not supplied to the two detenus along with the grounds. It has been pointed out that the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are a part of the charge-sheet and are accompanied by the name, were not supplied to the two detenus along with the grounds. In reply the District Magistrate, Lucknow in paragraph 11 of his counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 6522 of 1985 and in paragraph 12 of his counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 6823 of 1985 dated 27th January, 1986 has stated that as regards the assertions made by the petitioner that he has not been supplied with the statements recorded during the course of investigation, it is stated that it is not the law to supply the material which is collected during the course of investigation and that the deponents satisfaction was based on the F. I. Rs and the charge-sheet, copies of which supplied to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention. On the basis of this return the Deputy Government Advocate urged that there was no requirement of law which entitled the detenus to be supplied with the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We are unable to accept this submission since law on the point is well settled and in dealing with life and liberty of a citizen the detaining authority is under mandatory obligation under the provision of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India read with relevant provisions of the National Security Act itself and in particular Sections 10 and 13 of the Act that all the material which came in light during the course of investigation and which led to submission of the charge-sheet should have been considered by the District Magistrate and in any case, copy of the said material furnished to the detenus along with the grounds of detention so as to enable him to make an effective representation to the State Government. The petitioners were not named in the F. I. R. The basis on which their complicity came to be known is the material found in course of investigation. The petitioners were not named in the F. I. R. The basis on which their complicity came to be known is the material found in course of investigation. It is not disputed that at the time when the petitioners could make their representation, they did not possess that material; it is wholly immaterial that at some later time, after the charge sheet was submitted to the Court, the petitioners may have been furnished with the copes of the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The position would have been different if the detention order was passed and grounds were furnished to the petitioners after submission of charge sheet in the court and furnishing of the statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We have no hesitation in holding that in as far as ground No. 1 is concerned the respective detenus is were denied a fair and reasonable opportunity to represent against them and the detention order as such stands vitiated. ( 4 ) FURTHER the submission on grounds 1 and 2 regarding incidents indicated therein were also to effect that they were, at the most, confined only to question pertaining to maintenance of law and order and not public order. Both the grounds set out individual acts; there is no indication that the acts affected, or had the propensity to affect, the even tempo of life of the community; indeed there is no semblance of disturbance of public order in the two crimes. Public order generally means peace and tranquility of the community at large. It is an expression of wide connotation which signifies that the state of tranquility prevails amongst the members of the society as observed by a Full Bench of this Court in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 11151 of 1984 (Ashok Dixit v. State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 1st August, 1985, The Full Bench decision considered the decisions of the Supreme Court starting from the case of Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar as also the case of Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Benal where the Supreme Court observed; Does the expression public order take in every kind of infraction of order or only some categories thereof? It is manifest that every act of assault of injury to specific persons does not lead to public disorder Contravention of any Law always affects order, but before it can be said to affect public order it must affect community or the public at large A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act but a disturbance which will affect public order comes within the scope of the Act. ( 5 ) THIS distinction between the concept of public order and law and ordert was similar to the distinction between the public and private crimes, In the realm of jurisprudence case in a public crime public at large is affected and in a private crime an individual is affected which does not affect the normal avocation of the members of the society. ( 6 ) THE Supreme Court again considered this matter in the cases of Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal and in Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration and the principles subsequently were followed in the succeeding cases of Jitendra Nath Biswas v. State of West Bengal and Dhena Henbram v. District Magistrate West Dinajpur and the Court was of the view that an activity affecting public order would embrace an act which has the potentiality to affect public peace and tranquility If it has the potentiality of disturbing the even tempo of the life of the community it would affect public order. However, even if an activity amounts to serious breach of law like murder, dacoity or robbery but if it does not create terror and panic, it does not affect the even tempo of the life of the community the offence or the crime, however reprehensible, cannot be said to affect public order. (emphasis supplied ). As observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ajay Dixit v. State of Uttar Pradesh it was necessary in each case to examine facts and the nature of the grounds alleged and see whether those are relevant or not in considering whether the detenus can be detained as of necessity for maintenance of public order. Looking from this angle and applying these well settled principles of law we are not persuaded that the activities imputed to the detenus in any way disturbed the public order. Looking from this angle and applying these well settled principles of law we are not persuaded that the activities imputed to the detenus in any way disturbed the public order. ( 7 ) COMING to the third ground of detention it has been urged by the Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the detaining authority that the third ground being independent and separable from the two earlier grounds the detention order even if found to be unsustainable on grounds 1 and 2 would not fall as a whole. There is no dispute on this point inasmuch as this contention has not been seriously assailed by !he learned counsel for the petitioners in the two petitions inasmuch as the law has been made crystal clear by the pronouncements of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in various decisions starting from the case of State of Gujarat v. Chamanlal Mauji Bhai Soni where a provision similar to Section 5-A of the Act had been inserted as Section 5-A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) and the Court held that even if one of the grounds is irrelevant, vague or unspecific but if other ground is clear and specific that by itself did not village the order of detention in view of Section 5- A. ( 8 ) THE two counsels appearing for the two detenus in the respective writ petitions have, however, again contended that in as far as ground No. 3 is concerned this, in any case, does not pertain to an alleged incident which was or was likely to affect public order and at the most would be a crime, if at all established, to be a matter pertaining to law and order besides that the detaining authority did not apply its mind to certain relevant facts in the said cases which, if placed before him, would have changed his subjective satisfaction. In paragraphs Nos. In paragraphs Nos. 26 to 34 of Writ Petition No. 6823 of 1985 it bas been stated that full facts and particulars were not placed before the detaining authority inasmuch as an application of that other under trials, Rajender Singh, Pooran Mal and Jhamman was forwarded by the Superintendent, District Jail, Lucknow on 8th October, 1985 addressed to Shri U. C. Dayani, Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow stating that some unknown persons had fired at Vijay Pratap Singh and Kamal Kishore Saini and other persons named had been implicated falsely and that this fact was also mentioned in the bail applications of the petitioners moved before the Sessions Judge, Lucknow on which comments were invited from the police and though the bail application was moved much before the order of detention was passed on 28th November, 1985 and the police had knowledge about the fact. This fact had not been placed before the detaining authority by the reporting authority. The detaining authority the District Magistrate, Lucknow, in paragraph 19 of his counter affidavit dated 27th January, 1986 filed in Writ Petition No. 6823 of 1985, inter alia, stated: It is submitted that the deponent on the basis of material placed before him regarding third ground which is in respect of the incident dated 16-8-85 was subjectively satisfied that the incident affected the public order and not law and order and in order to prevent the petitioner from indulging into the activities pre judicial to the maintenance of public order it was essential to pass the detention order. The deponent accordingly passed the detention order detaining the petitioner. Even if the assertions set up by the petitioner were placed before the deponent the deponents satisfaction would not have changed as deponent felt satisfied that the occurrence affected public order as it relates to firing at an accused in custody in court compound. (emphasis supplied ). ( 9 ) WE fail to appreciate the assertion made in the return that even if the material not supplied to the petitioners had been placed before the detaining authority he would not have changed his subjective satisfaction same this has never been accepted as a correct proposition of law. (emphasis supplied ). ( 9 ) WE fail to appreciate the assertion made in the return that even if the material not supplied to the petitioners had been placed before the detaining authority he would not have changed his subjective satisfaction same this has never been accepted as a correct proposition of law. The learned Deputy Government Advocate placed reliance on the case of Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Kerala and others in which the Supreme Court was pleased to hold that failure to refer in the grounds about retraction of confessional statements made by detenus did not vitiate the order and would not lead to non-application of mind. We fail to understand how parity can be drawn from the facts and circumstances of this case with the facts and circumstances in the instant writ petitions. The grounds under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution do not mean mere factual inferences but mean factual inferences plus factual material, which led to such factual inferences. We hold that in the instant case non- consideration of the application of the co-accused and the police report, as also other material cannot be put at par with the facts of Prakash Chandra Mehtas case (supra ). to. This court had pointed out in the case of Aditya Kumar alias Guddoo Misra10 that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, viz the District Magistrate. Lucknow, was vitiated because of the failure of the concerned police authorities to place certain complaints, in the nature of protest applications, before the detaining authority. It is high time that the police authorities ensure furnishing to the detaining authority all relevant material, which could influence the mind of the detaining authority one way or the other. 11. The necessity of placing relevant material by the reporting authority before the detaining authority has been emphasised over and over again by the Supreme Court. The case of Asha Devi v. K. Shivraj, Addi. Chief Secretary relying upon certain earlier decisions may be seen. 12. We are also not satisfied that the detaining authority could legally prove by an affidavit, in these proceedings, that if the material had been placed before him, he would have arrived at the same subjective satisfaction at which he has arrived without the material. Chief Secretary relying upon certain earlier decisions may be seen. 12. We are also not satisfied that the detaining authority could legally prove by an affidavit, in these proceedings, that if the material had been placed before him, he would have arrived at the same subjective satisfaction at which he has arrived without the material. It would appear from the decision in the case of Mohinder Singh v. Chief Election Commissioner, that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be justified by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavits or otherwise. The same principle may justly and fairly be applied to the grounds of an order of detention. 13. The third ground of detention, therefore, stands vitiated. 14. In view of the discussion above we are of the opinion that the detention of the two petitioners under the provisions of Section 3 (2) of the Act is illegal. 15. The petitions are, accordingly, allowed and the petitioners are directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless they are required in connection with any other case.