Judgment 1. In this writ application under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the detenu has challenged the order of detention dated 14th July, 1986 passed under S.12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (for short to be referred to as the Act hereinafter) passed by the District Magistrate, Purnea (respondent No. 2), as contained in Annexure-1, and for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for releasing him for detention. 2. On 20th July, 1986 Annexure-2 containing the grounds of detention was served on the petitioner in the Purnea Jail. The order of detention contained in Annexure-1 was approved on 25-7-1986, and confirmed on 28-8-1986, after receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board. 3. The grounds of detention as mentioned in Annexure-2 are as follows :- (1) Khajanchi Hat P. S. Case No. 332/84 under S.342/324/323/379, I.P.C. : Pappu Yadav is one of F.I.R. named accused. On 30-11-84 at 6 p.m. while the complainant was coming out of "Four Star" Cinema Hall Pappu Yadav and hi associates assaulted him with dagger and took out money from his pocket. Charge-sheet was submitted against them. (2) Khazanchi Hat P.S. Case No. 193/85 under S.448/323/379/341, I.P.C. : Pappu Yadav alas Rajesh Ranjan is named in F.I.R. along with another associates; On 7-9-85 at 9 p.m., Pappu Yadav and his associates entered into the office of Chitrabani Cinema Hall Purnea and assaulted the complainant with lathi and forcibly took his wrist watch and money. Charge-sheet was submitted in this case against them. (3) Khazanchi Hat P. S. Case No. 273/85 under S.147/148/149/307, I.P.C. and 3/4 Explosive Substances Act : Pappu Yadav alias Rajesh Ranjan is one of the F.I.R. named accused in this case. On 4-12-85 at 9.30 a.m. Pappu Yadav and his associates by forming unlawful assembly exploded bombs on complainant and one Pramod Singh the witness of Sessions Case while they were coming out of the office of Shri K.L. Sah, Addl. P.P., Purnea. This case is under investigation and charge sheet is likely to be submitted against Pappu Yadav and others. On 4-12-85 at 9.30 a.m. Pappu Yadav and his associates by forming unlawful assembly exploded bombs on complainant and one Pramod Singh the witness of Sessions Case while they were coming out of the office of Shri K.L. Sah, Addl. P.P., Purnea. This case is under investigation and charge sheet is likely to be submitted against Pappu Yadav and others. (4) Khazanchi Hat P. S. Case No.19/86 under S.399/402/307, I.P.C. and 20/86 under S.25A/26 Arms Act, both dt/-16-1-86 : Pappu Yadav along with six others is named in F.I.R On 16-1-86 while Pappu Yadav and his associates were making preparation with arms for -committing dacoity by assembling at a place, were challenged by Police Party on which they fired at police party from their pistols and revolvers with intention to kill them but Pappu Yadav and one more were caught at the spot. From possession of Pappu Yadav country made pistol, revolver and live cartridges were recovered. Case is under investigation and charge-sheet is likely to be submitted. (5) Khazanchi Hat P. S. Case No. 39/86 under S.393/307/109, I.P.C. and under S.304 Explosive Substances Act : He is one of the F.I.R. named accused in this case. On 28-2-1986 at 10 p.m., the associates of Pappu Yadav in pursuance of conspiracy hatched by Pappu Yadav entered into Krishna Hotel, Purnea and attempted to loot cash at the point of pistol and exploded bomb on complainant. Charge-sheet was submitted in this case." After mentioning the aforesaid grounds in Annexure-2 it has further been mentioned as follows : - "In the circumstances, I am satisfied that Pappu Yadav is an anti-social element and if he is allowed to remain at large he will indulge in activities prejudicial to maintenance of public order. For prevention of such activities I consider his detention necessary. " It has further been mentioned therein that the petitioner is informed that he may make representation in writing against the order under which he has been detained. His representation, if any, may be addressed to the Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and forwarded through the Superintendent of Jail. 4. The case of the petitioner further is that on receipt of the grounds of detention he filed representation on 7-8-1986, but he has not been intimated the result of the representation till today. 5. Mr. 4. The case of the petitioner further is that on receipt of the grounds of detention he filed representation on 7-8-1986, but he has not been intimated the result of the representation till today. 5. Mr. Ram Suresh Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of detention on various grounds. The first ground of challenge is that the District Magistrate has no authority to exercise the powers under S.12 of the Act and as such the same is illegal and without jurisdiction. In support of this contention, Mr. Roy has referred to the order of detention contained in Annexure-1 which is dated 14th July, 1986. In para 2 of the aforesaid order, it has been mentioned that respondent No. 2 has passed this order of detention in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sub-sec. (2) of S.12 of the Act read with Notification No. 2647 dt/-10-3-1986 of the Government of Bihar, Home (Police) Department. Relying on this, it has been submitted that respondent No. 2 was authorised by the aforesaid notification dated 10-3-1986, and according to S.12(2) of the Act, the District Magistrate can exercise powers of detention under S.12 of the Act only when the State Government passes an order authorising him to pass such order of detention, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area of the district of jurisdiction, of the District Magistrate, which power will only last for three months. On the basis of sub-sec. (2) of S.12 of the Act and the proviso thereof, the contention of Mr. Roy is that on expiry of every three months, the State Government has to authorise the District Magistrates to pass orders under the aforesaid sub-section. No doubt, according to the proviso of sub-sec. (2), the power authorising the District Magistrate to pass order of detention cannot be given to him (District Magistrate) exceeding the period of three months at any one time, and, according to him, the aforesaid Notification dated 10th March, 1986, has spent its force on 10-6-1986, and hence respondent No. 2 was not legally entitled to pass the said order of detention as contained in Annexure-1 on 14th July, 1986. 6. 6. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 sworn by the Deputy Collector, In charge Legal Section of the Purnea Collectorate it has been merely stated in para 5 that the District Magistrate has the jurisdiction to exercise the power under S.12(2) of the Act conferred upon him by the State Government. There is no mention in the whole of the counter-affidavit that any such jurisdiction has been conferred on the District Magistrate by a subsequent notification. But during the course of hearing of this application Mr. Lola Kailash Bihari showed a notification bearing No. 6792 dated 1-7-1986 of the Government of Bihar, (Home) Police Department authorising District Magistrates of all the district of Bihar to exercise the powers under S.12 of the Act till 30-9-1986, and in view of that notification, it cannot be said that on the 14th July, 1986, respondent No. 2 had no power to pass the impugned order of detention. 7. It has next been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the reference made by respondent No. 2 to Notification No. 2647 dated 10th March, 1986, which had already spent its force in the month of July, 1986, shows non-application of mind by him. I do not find any substance in this submission also, as in the present Notification No. 6792, reference has been made to the affforesaid notification No. 2647 dated 10-3-1986, and merely on the fact that he has referred to the aforesaid notification of March, 1986, it cannot be said that respondent No. 2 has not a applied his mind while passing the order of detention (Annexure.1). 8. It has next been contended that some of the grounds mentioned in Annexure-2 are irrelevant and vitiate the order of detention. In support of this submission Mr. Roy has referred to Ground No. (4), which has been quoted above. In this ground reference has been made to Khazanchi Hat P. S. Case No. 20 of 1986 under Ss.25A and 26 of the Arms Act dated 16-1-1986. In support of this submission Mr. Roy has referred to Ground No. (4), which has been quoted above. In this ground reference has been made to Khazanchi Hat P. S. Case No. 20 of 1986 under Ss.25A and 26 of the Arms Act dated 16-1-1986. In ground No. 4, it has been mentioned that the petitioner and his associates were making preparation with arms for committing dacoity by assembling at a place, and on challenge by the police party, they fired at the police party from their pistols and revolvers with an intention to kill them, but the petitioner and one more were caught at the spot, and from the possession of the petitioner country made pistol, revolver and live cartridges were recovered. According to the definition of "anti-social element" as given in S.2(d)(v) of the Act, one cannot be an antisocial element unless he is convicted of the offences under S.25, 26, 27, 28 or 29 of the Arms Act of 1957. According to his contention, as the petitioner was not shown to have been convicted under any of the aforesaid Sections he cannot be characterised as an anti-social element. In the present case, according to him, only registration of a police case under Ss.25A and 26 of the Arms Act has been mentioned in Annexure-2, which is one of the grounds of detention. Mere registration of the case under the Arms Act has been taken into consideration by the detaining authority and the consideration thereof has vitiated the entire order of detention entitling the petitioner to be released from detention, as submitted by him. On the other hand, it has been submitted by Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari that the same is not a ground of detention as appears from Annexure-2. He has contended that the main case is Khazanchi Hat P. S. Case No. 19 of 1986 under Ss. 399, 402 and 307 of the IPC in which the petitioner was arrested and unlicensed fire arms and cartridges were recovered from his possession. He has further submitted that the incident being the same, the case under Ss. 25A and 26 of the Arms Act has been mentioned incidentally, while mentioning Khajanchi Hat P.S. Case No. 19 of 1986 under the aforesaid Section of the Penal Code, which is the main case. He has further submitted that the incident being the same, the case under Ss. 25A and 26 of the Arms Act has been mentioned incidentally, while mentioning Khajanchi Hat P.S. Case No. 19 of 1986 under the aforesaid Section of the Penal Code, which is the main case. He has further submitted that even if this case is excluded from consideration, there are other grounds mentioned in Annexure-2, which make the petitioner as anti-social element. I do not feel persuaded to accept these submissions made by Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari on behalf of the respondents. 9. It is well settled that the passing of the detention order by the detaining authority is based on his subjective satisfaction and for the court it is difficult to say as to whether the reference of the latter case in the ground of detention has affected the mind of the detaining authority or not and in case even one of the grounds becomes irrelevant, the entire order has to he quashed. 10. The order of detention is the result of the cumulative effect of all the facts mentioned in the grounds, and if one of the grounds becomes irrelevant, it is impossible for the Court to see the extent of effect created by the irrelevant ground on the mind of the detaining authority. 11. In the case of Bhupal Chandra Ghosh V/s. Arif Ali, AIR 1974 SC 255 : (1974 Cri LJ 326) some of the grounds mentioned in the order of detention were found not for maintenance of the public order, but still the entire order was quashed. The case of Smt. Gayathri V/s. Commr. of Police, Madras, AIR 1981 SC 1672 : (1981 Cri LJ 1272) is also an authority on this point; besides there are several other decisions on the point, which need not he mentioned. In case some of the grounds being irrelevant and the order of detention is to be sustained on the remaining relevant grounds, it would amount to substituting the objective judicial test for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, which is not permissible. It has also been held that if one of the grounds mentioned is irrelevant, the order of detention is fit to be quashed. 12. Mr. Roy has also submitted that the grounds for detaining the petitioner are concerning the law and order problem. It has also been held that if one of the grounds mentioned is irrelevant, the order of detention is fit to be quashed. 12. Mr. Roy has also submitted that the grounds for detaining the petitioner are concerning the law and order problem. It cannot be said to be prejudicial to the public order, but in view of the fact that the order as contained in Annexure-1 is going to be quashed on the ground mentioned above, I do not give any finding on the point that the grounds mentioned in Annexure-2 are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order or not. 13. Learned Additional P.P. also contended that there is nothing in the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 to show that in case one or some of the grounds of detention is are irrelevant, stale or non est, the whole of the detention order will be liable to be quashed. I do not find any substance in it because, there is no provision in the Act that if the order of detention has been made on more than one ground, such order of detention will be deemed to be valid or operative, even one or some of the grounds is/are vague, nonexistent, irrelevant, not connected or not proximately connected with such person or invalid for any other reason whatsoever. Previously in cases under the National Security Act where one or two grounds, if found to be vague, non-existent, irrelevant, not connected or not proximately connected with such person, or invalid for any other reason, the whole detention order used to be held invalid. Facing with this situation, amendment by insertion of S.5-A in the National Security Act, 1980 was made by the National Security (Second Amendment) Act, 1984 (No. 60 of 1984), but there is no such provision in the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981. 14. For the reasons stated above, the application is allowed. The order of detention Annexure-1) is hereby quashed. Let a writ of habeas corpus be issued for releasing the petitioner forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other case.