Judgment R.K. Shukla, J. 1. BY means of this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, Mohd. Yameen has challenged the order of his detention dated 5-11-1985 (Annexure I to the writ petition), passed under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the District Magistrate, Moradabad. 2. THE aforesaid order of detention was served on the petitioner on the same day, i.e. 5-11-1985 and he was taken into custody. THE grounds of detention (Annexure II to the petition) along with ten enclosures were handed over to the petitioner in jail on 7-11-1985. THE grounds of detention of the petitioner as given in Annexure II are in short as under : 1. On 22-9-1985 when after the death of Sayeedul Rahman accused, situation in Moradabad city was tense, petitioner collected undesirable elements at his house on 26-9-1985 and told them that spreading of rumour regarding cutting of the beard of Sayeedul Rahman has brought desired result according to his plan and further plan has to be made for spreading religious provocation amongst Muslims. Facts relating to this has been noted down in the confidential diary of L.I.U. at Serial No. 548 dated 27-9-1985. 2. On 29-9-1985 the petitioner along with other friends forced Aslam Barber to make false statement that Sri Narendra Pal, S. O. Galshahid gave a scissor to cut the beard of Sayeedul Rahman. For that the petitioner promised to pay sufficient money to Aslam Barber. This fact is also mentioned in the L.I.U. confidential diary at Serial No. 555 dated 30-9-1985. 3. On 30-9-1985 the petitioner' collected certain undesirable persons and spread such rumours so that there might be riot between Hindus and Muslims as it happened in 1980. THE petitioner tried his best to Create hatred in the minds of Muslims against Hindus and police, details of which are mentioned in the L.I.U. confidential diary at serial No. 557 dated 30-9-1985. Due to aforesaid rumours spread by the petitioner, tension and terror prevailed amongst Hindus and Muslims in Moradabad. If the District Administration had not acted tactfully then the petitioner would have succeeded in spreading riot in Moradabad city. 4. When the petitioner did not succeed in his aforesaid plan then in anguish on 7-10-1985 with the conspiracy of Dr. Due to aforesaid rumours spread by the petitioner, tension and terror prevailed amongst Hindus and Muslims in Moradabad. If the District Administration had not acted tactfully then the petitioner would have succeeded in spreading riot in Moradabad city. 4. When the petitioner did not succeed in his aforesaid plan then in anguish on 7-10-1985 with the conspiracy of Dr. Hamid Husain, son of Ahmad Hasan Khan, resident of Kathdarwaza, police station Galashahid, district Moradabad he convened a meeting at his house in which a decision was taken that trouble should be created by provocating Muslims against the police. At the same time he along with his associates planned to provoke Kunjada Biradari. This activity of the petitioner spread in the city and atmosphere of the city was spoiled. THE details of this meeting held at the residence of the petitioner are mentioned in L.I.U. confidential diary at serial No. 578 dated 8-10-1985. 5. On 14-10-1985 at the crossing of Tabakian the petitioner collected 10-15 Muslim associates, and started giving lecture loudly and said that Muslims should be united, their reliigion was in danger ; innocent Sayeedul Rahman had been killed by Hindus with the connivance of police ; that they had to take revenge of blood against blood, police was favouring Hindus ; in 1980 police and Hindus unitedly killed Muslims ; police of Galshahid would do nothing in the case of murder of Sayeedul Rahman. THE petitioner went towards Sambhali Gate saying that Qafirs should be finished. Crossing of Tabakian is a busy and sensitive place. Hearing such utterances of the petitioner people assembled in large number. When the petitioner left the place, people started fleeing away and shops were closed. Atmosphere was full of fear, terror and tension and public life was disturbed. On receiving the information of such situation, the S. O. reached with police force at that place, found the information to be true, controlled the situation, got the shops opened ; full assurance of their protection was given and special arrangement of police was made. Atmosphere was full of fear, terror and tension and public life was disturbed. On receiving the information of such situation, the S. O. reached with police force at that place, found the information to be true, controlled the situation, got the shops opened ; full assurance of their protection was given and special arrangement of police was made. Report of this incident is noted down in report No. 32 at 19.45 Due to such speeches of the petitioner, disturbance in the market, atmosphere of terror and tension prevailed in thai; area, which created adverse effect on maintenance of public order, Hindu-Muslim riot was apprehended at any time in the city of Moradabad due to provocative speeches of the petitioner. On the aforesaid grounds the detaining authority was fully satisfied that the petitioner could do anything in any manner, which was contrary to maintenance of social order. Therefore, with the object of maintaining social and public order, the Detaining Authority, Moradabad passed the detention order dated 5-11-1985, against the petitioner. 3. THE State Government of U. P. approved the aforesaid detention order on 16-11-85 and reported the fact to the Central Government on the same day as required by Section 3 (5) of the Act. On 21-11-85 the matter was referred to the Advisory Board, which heard the petitioner on 11-12-85 and submitted its report to the U. P. Government,, whereupon the detention order dated 5-11-85 was confirmed on 23-12-85 by the State Government. THE petitioner made his first representation on 25-11-85 under Section 8 of the Act through the Superintendent of Jail, which was forwarded to the State Government by the District Magistrate on 24-11-85. THE State Government rejected the said representation on 6-12-85 and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 10-12-85. 4. THEREAFTER according to the allegations made in the petition another representation dated 9-1-86 under Section 14 of the Act was sent by Sri D. S. Misra, Advocate, High Court, Allahabad on the direction and advice of the petitioner to the Central Government and the State Government through the President of India and the Governor of U. P. respectively by registered posts. It is also alleged that the said representation was received by the Governor of U. P. on 11-1-86 ; but the disposal and decision of that representation has not been communicated to the petitioner. It is also alleged that the said representation was received by the Governor of U. P. on 11-1-86 ; but the disposal and decision of that representation has not been communicated to the petitioner. But the receipt of this representation dated 9-1-86 is not admitted by the State of U. P. It is further alleged in paragraph 3 of the supplementary re-joinder affidavit filed by Mohd. Saleem son of Mohd. Yamin on behalf of the petitioner that after receiving the copy of the representation dated 9-1-86 from the Central Government, the same has not been disposed of expeditiously. However, the said representation was received in the office of the President of India on 13-1-86 and sent to Home Ministry, which was received on 22-1-86, where it was disposed of on 26-2-86 after obtaining comments from the U. P. Government. It is further alleged in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the petition that copies of daily report No. 542 dated 25-9-85 and daily report No. 555 mentioned in reports Nos.548 and 557 respectively were not supplied to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention which contravene the provisions of Sections 3 (4) and 3 (5) of the Act, and as such his detention is illegal. Hence the present writ petition has been filed on 4-2-86. All the aforesaid allegations have been denied on behalf of the State Government, Distt.Magistrate as well as the Central Government through affidavits. 5. ALTHOUGH several pleas have been raised in this petition by the petitioner, which have been denied by the opposite parties ; but Sri D. S. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner urged only the following three points before us :- 1. That the delay in deciding the representation dated 9-1-86 under Section 14 of the Act sent to the President of India at three stages during the periods (a) 13-1-86 to 22-1-86, (b) 23-1-86 to 4-2-86 and (c) 7-2-86 to 13-2-86, has not been explained and it vitiates the detention of the petitioner. 2. That the representation dated 9-1-86 under Section 14 of the Act sent to the M. M. Governor of U. P. by Sri D. S. Misra, Advocate, High Court, Allahabad on the instructions of the petitioner has not been decided and communicated to the petitioner which vitiates his detention. In the alternative it is also pleaded in the supplementary re-joinder affidavit dated 6-8-86 filed by Mohd. In the alternative it is also pleaded in the supplementary re-joinder affidavit dated 6-8-86 filed by Mohd. Saleem son of the petitioner that even alter receipt of the copy of the representation dated 9-1-86 from the Central Government the State Government did not dispose it of expeditiously and 3. That non-supply of the copies of daily report No. 542 dated 25-9-1985 and daily report No. 555 mentioned in reports Nos.548 and 557 respectively supplied to the petitioner along with grounds of detention, contravene the provisions of Sections 3 (4) and 3 (5) of the Act and petitioner's detention is illegal on this ground also. 6. NOW we proceed to examine the merit of each point separately and take up the first point. Mr. Girdhar Malviya, learned Additional Government Advocate urged that the representation dated 9-1-86 was received on 13-1-86 in Rashtrapati Bhavan ; 14th January was Sankranti holiday, 17th January was a holiday on account of Guru Govind Singh Birth Day ; 18th and 19th January were Saturday and Sunday and Central offices remained closed on those dates. Thus according to him, only four working days, namely, 15th, 16th, 20th and 21st January were available to the officials, who received petitions in thousands at Rashtrapati Bhavan from all over India on different topics. Their sorting out, entries in the register and despatching Hake some time. Delivery of such papers in different Ministries also consumes some; time. Admittedly this representation was received in the Home Ministry, Government of India on 22-1-1986 and on 23- 1-1986 parawise comments of U. P. Government were sought through a telex message. This explanation given by Mr. Malviya fully justifies the alleged nine days' delay between 13-1-1986 to 22-1-1986 at Rashtrapati Bhavan. There is no undue delay. In this case, as it was in Raghavendra Singh's case, 1986 ACrR 355 on which reliance was placed by Sri D. S. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner. In that case delay was of about two months and one week. In that very case their Lordships of (he Supreme Court have been pleased to observe that ' some allowance may be made for the time taken to forward the representation to the appropriate ministry '. Following the ratio of Raghavendra Singh's case (supra) we are satisfied that adequate explanation has been given in the present case for the delay of nine days. Following the ratio of Raghavendra Singh's case (supra) we are satisfied that adequate explanation has been given in the present case for the delay of nine days. The aforesaid delay of twelve days between 23-1-1986 to 4-2-1986 and six days delay between 7-2-1986 to 13-2-1986 have also been explained by Mr. Malviya adequately, referring the affidavits filed on behalf of the State of U. P. as well as the Central Government and showing relevant papers from the original record summoned in the Court and the calender of holidays, to us. It is clear from paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit of Sri Madan Mohan Rastogi, Section Officer, Confidential Section (VIII), U. P. Secretariat, Lucknow and from the.' record summoned that the representation dated 9-1-1986 was not received by the State Government. For the first time (hey heard about it when comments of the detaining authority were asked for from them by the Central Government on 23-1-1986 through telex message, which was received in the confidential section, U. P. Secretariat, Lucknow on 24- 1-1986. Since the State Government had received no copy of the representation, a copy thereof was sought for from the Central Government. On 25- 1-86 Home Secretary, U. P. made queries 26-1-1986 was holiday on account of Republic Day. On 27-1-1986 Joint Secretary Home, U. P. wrote a letter to the Private Secretary to the Hon'ble Governor, U. P. to this effect that if the representation sent by Sri D. S. Misra, Advocate, High Court, Allahabad on behalf of the petitioner has been received in Governor's office the same must be sent immediately to confidential department (Home). On 30-1-1986 a wireless message was sent to the Secretary Home, Government of India, New Delhi by Joint Secretary (Home) U. P. to this effect that the State Government has not received any such representation. Parawise comments of the detaining authority will be made avaliable to the Government of India on the receipt of a copy of the representation. On 4-2-1986 Home Department, Government of India, New Delhi sent a telex message, which was received in the Confidential Department, U. P. Secretariat on 5-2-86 to the effect that copy of the representation in question addressed to the Hon'ble President of India is being enclosed with the postcopy as desired and to kindly furnish parawise comments of the detaining authority on this representation. On 7-2-1986 copy of the representation dated 9-1-1986 addressed to the President of India and at serial No. 2 to the Governor U. P. after cutting the name and address of the previous addressee, was lor the first time received by Confidential Department (Home) U P Secretariat and on the same day a letter alongwith the aforesaid copy of the representation received from the Government of India was sent to the detaining authority, Moradabad for his comments through special messenger. The District Magistrate Moradabad despatched his comments on 13-2-1986, which was received in the Home Department, U. P. on 17-2-1986 and the same was sent to the Home Ministry, Government of India, New Delhi on 19-2-1986. That was received by Home Ministry, Central Government on 21-2-1986. Thereafter the final decision to reject the said representation was taken by the Central Government within five working days (excluding 22nd and 23rd February, 1986 being closed holidays) available for consideration. Final decision to reject the representation was taken on 26-2-1986 and it was communicated to the representationist Sri D S. Misra, Advocate Allahabad through the Chief Secretary and Superintendent Jail through a crash message dated 28-2-1986 followed by a letter dated 28-2-1986. Therefore, there had been no unjustified delay at any stage in deciding the representation dated 9-1-1986 addressed to the President of India. In this way the aforesaid alleged delay between 23-1-1986 to 4-2-86 and 7-2-86 to 13-2-86 have also been explained. Therefore, this point has no force and rejected. 7. LET us now proceed to examine the second point in which disputed question of fact whether alleged representation dated 9-1-1986 under section 14 of the Act was received or not by the State Government, is involved. The facts regarding this alleged representation are given in paragraph 29 of this petition filed on 4-2-1986. It is stated therein that a representation was sent through registered post to State Government and Central Government on 9-1-1986. It is further stated that the aforesaid representation was received by the State Government, M. M. the Governor, U. P. on 11-1-86. This fact has been denied by the State Government through affidavit of Sri Madan Mohan Rastogi. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit, he has stated that the representation dated 9-1-1986 was not received either in the office of the Governor or concerned section of the State Government. This fact has been denied by the State Government through affidavit of Sri Madan Mohan Rastogi. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit, he has stated that the representation dated 9-1-1986 was not received either in the office of the Governor or concerned section of the State Government. Thereafter photostat copies of postal receipts and acknowledgement due were attached with the rejoinder affidavit dated 16-3-1986. Then again after making inquiry from the Governor's Secretariat, it has been stated on behalf of the State by Sri Madan Mohan Rastogi in paragraph 2 of his supplementary counter affidavit dated 4-8-1986 that no such representation sent by Sri D. S. Misra had till that date, been received. It is further stated that earlier assertion in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit was made on the basis of a letter (Annexure CA-I) of the Under Secretary to the Governor of U. P. It is also stated in paragraph 3 of the supplementary counter affidavit that the Deputy Secretary to the Governor's Secretariat, U. P. by his letter dated 31-5-1986 says that if any such representation had been received in the Governor's Secretariat, on 11-1-1986 as shown in Annexure II to the supplementary affidavit, the same must have been sent to the Petition Section of Govt. of U. P. as there is no petition section in the Governor's Secretariat, After getting the said communication from the Governor's Secretariat, the Confidential Section has again made inquiries from the Petition Department as also from the Chief Minister's Secretariat whether any representation of the petitioner's counsel, Sri D. S. Misra, dated 9-1-1986 has been received at any point of time ; but both these offices have stated that no such representation has been received by them. In the said affidavit in paragraph 2 it is also stated that after a copy of the said representation was received by the State Government on 7-2-1986, the State Govt. in view of the fact that the said copy also showed the representation to have been made to the Governor U. P. also treated this copy received from the President's Secretariat as the representation to the Governor made on behalf of the petitioner. After receiving the comments of the District Magistrate dated 17-2-1986, which was sent to the Government of India on 19-2-1986, the said representation was carefully considered by the State Government, U. P. and was ultimately rejected on 26-2-1986. After receiving the comments of the District Magistrate dated 17-2-1986, which was sent to the Government of India on 19-2-1986, the said representation was carefully considered by the State Government, U. P. and was ultimately rejected on 26-2-1986. It is also asserted that there has been no inaction on the part of the State Govt. In the supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed on 8-8-1986 the petitioner has again reiterated his earlier stand and in paragraph 3 of the said affidavit, the petitioner reiterated his earlier stand has stated that even after the receipt of the copy of the representation from the Central Government, it has not been expeditiously disposed of and delay has not been explained. 8. MR. Malviya, learned Additional Govt. Advocate vehemently contended that the postal receipt and its acknowledgement due do not conclusively prove that the representation on behalf of the petitioner was sent therein. At the best they prove that Sri D. S. Misra had sent some letter addressed to the Governor. It is important to note that the copy of the alleged representation under section 14 of the Act sent to the M. M. the Governor U. P. was not attached with this petition for reasons best known to the petitioner. Although one rejoinder affidavit and two supplementary rejoinder affidavits have been filed in this case on behalf of the petitioner ; but the copy of the controversial representation dated 9-1-1986 addressed to the Governor, U. P. has not been brought on the record of this Court upto this date. In the supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated 6-8-1986 in paragraph 3 of the affidavit of Mohd. Saleem son of the petitioner, it is pleaded that even after the receipt of the copy of the representation from the Central Govt. no effort was made on behalf of the State Govt. to decide it expeditiously. From this assertion we can infer that perhaps this was the copy of the alleged representation sent to the Governor, U. P. on 9-1-1986. A photostat copy, was sent by the Central Govt. on 4-2-1986 and received by Home Department U. P. on 7-2-1986 is found in the record of the State Govt. summoned by us. to decide it expeditiously. From this assertion we can infer that perhaps this was the copy of the alleged representation sent to the Governor, U. P. on 9-1-1986. A photostat copy, was sent by the Central Govt. on 4-2-1986 and received by Home Department U. P. on 7-2-1986 is found in the record of the State Govt. summoned by us. In this representation first addressee is " Mananiya Rashtrapati Mahodaya, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi ", and the second addressee was some body else probably at Delhi, whose name and address has been cut out and in between those rubbed and cut lines " Mahamahim Raiya Pal, Uttar Pradesh Shasan, Lucknow" is written in Hindi. A close scrutiny of this document reveals that not a single paragraph is addressed to the Governor U. P. in the body of the representation. A serious question may arise whether such joint representation addressed to the President of India and the Governor of U. P. will be deemed a representation to the State Government. It is possible that due to these reasons or some other reasons that copy of the representation has not been filed alongwith this petition. Since this question has not been raised before us and Central Government aswell as the State Govt, have treated the aforesaid representation as a representation under section 14 of the Act, it is not necessary for us to go into that question in this case. In the circumstances discussed above, it is a highly disputed question of fact whether the alleged representation darted 9-1-1986 under section 14 of the Act on behalf of the petitioner was sent to the Governor, U. P. Lucknow and received there and it cannot be decided in this writ petition. Since the plea has been taken that even after the receipt of a copy of the representation from the Central Govt. it has not been expeditiously disposed of, therefore, we proceed to examine this question. This plea has been taken by the petitioner in his second supplementary rejoinder affidavit of Mohd. Saleem. Therefore, we have examined the record of the Government ourselves. 9. MR. Malviya has contended that the copy of the representation addressed to the President of India and the Governor of U. P. was received by Home Department (Confidential) U. P. for the first time on 7-2-1986 as aforesaid. Saleem. Therefore, we have examined the record of the Government ourselves. 9. MR. Malviya has contended that the copy of the representation addressed to the President of India and the Governor of U. P. was received by Home Department (Confidential) U. P. for the first time on 7-2-1986 as aforesaid. It was sent to the District Magistrate, Moradabad for his comments through special messenger on the same day i. e. 7-2-1986 and it was received by the District Magistrate Moradabad on 8-2-1986. The District Magistrate asked for the comments of the police station on the same day. The comments of the police station was received by the District Magistrate, Moradabad on 11-2-1986. On 13-2-86 the District Magistrate, Monadabad sent his comments to the State Govt. which was received by the State Govt. on 17-2-1986. On 19-2-1986 this comment was sent to the Central Govt. as aforesaid. Since it was also treated as a representation to the State Govt. therefore, it was sent to confidential section for necessary action on 20-2-1986. On 22-2-1986 the Deputy Secretary (Home) and the Special Secretary (Home) dealt with this representation. On 24-2-1986 it was considered by the Home Secretary and on 26-2-1986 this representation dated 9-1-1986 was rejected by the State Govt. This rejection order passed by the U. P. Government was communicated to the petitioner on the same day i.e. 26-2-1986 through the District Magistrate, Moradabad and Superintendent Jail, Moradabad vide Radiogram message followed by letter No. Gopniya-8 108/2/60/85-C X-8, dated February 26, 1986. Thus the representation dated 9-1-1986 made by the petitioner has been duly considered by the State Government without any undue delay and it has been rejected. 10. NO argument was made on the merit of the detention order Therefore, following the ratio of Satpal's case, AIR 1981 SC 2230 we are also of the view that " The contention that the unexplained delay on the part of the State Government is sufficient to invalidate the order of detention can hardly be accepted. The Court must look at the substance of the matter and not act on mere technicality ". Thus we find no force in this point also and reject it. The Court must look at the substance of the matter and not act on mere technicality ". Thus we find no force in this point also and reject it. Now we are left with the aforesaid third and the last point regarding the non-supply of the copies of daily report No. 542 dated 25-9-85 and daily report No. 555 mentioned in reports Nos.548 and 557 respectively, to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention. Mr. D. S. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that non-supply of the aforesaid reports Contravenes the provisions of sections 3 (4) and 3 (5) of the Act and the petitioner's detention is vitiated on this ground. In support of his contention he relied on Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 550 , State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talvandi, AIR 1984 SC 444 , Vikram Pratap Singh v. State of U. P., Crimes, 1986 (2) 317 and some unreported decisions of this Court. 11. THE facts relating to this point are alleged in paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 of the petition. Those facts are controverted on behalf of the State by paragraphs 3 and 4 of the counter affidavit of Sri Madan Mohan Rastogi aswell as paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit of Sri Subhash Chandra Chaturvedi, District Magistrate Moradabad. In paragraph 13 of his counter affidavit, Mr. Chaturvedi has stated in reply to the aforesaid allegations made in paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 of the petition that all thus materials, documents, connected with the grounds of detention were furnished to the petitioner on 7-11-85. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit of Madan Mohan Rastogi, it is stated that the Distt.Magistrate, Moradabad had sent to the Govt. on 5-11-85 the order of detention, the grounds of detention and all other papers connected therewith together with L.I.U. reports Nos.542 and 555. THE State Govt carefully examined the entire papers and by order dated 16-11-'85 approved the order of detention and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 21-11-'85. On 16-11-'85 the State Govt. reported the approval with all papers to the Central Govt. Thus the provisions of law as laid down in sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 3 of the Act were fully complied with. Averments to the contrary are incorrect and as such denied. On 16-11-'85 the State Govt. reported the approval with all papers to the Central Govt. Thus the provisions of law as laid down in sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 3 of the Act were fully complied with. Averments to the contrary are incorrect and as such denied. It is further asserted in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit that there has been full compliance of Section 3 (4) and 3 (5), 8 and 10 of the Act and Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. 12. TEN documents, which were supplied to the petitioner alongwith the grounds of detention are as under :- 1. Jiwaa Vrat 2- S.S.P. ki report, 3- S. P. (City) ki report. 2. Dainik report No. 548, 27-9-85, L.I.U. Moradabad. 5. Dainik repoit No. 553, 30-9-8fi, L.I.U. Moradabad. 6. Dainik report No. 557, 30-9-85 L.I.U. Moradabad. 7. Dainik report No. 578, 8-10-85 L.I.U. Moradabad. 8. Nakal rapat Sankhya 26, 14-J0-85 P. S. Mugalpura. 9. Nakal rapat Sankhya 27, 14-10-85 P. S. Mugalpura. 10. Nakal rapat Sankhya 32, 14-10-85 P. S. Mugalpura. These enclosures have not been brought on the record by any party. We have checked up these papers from the original record summoned by us after careful scrutiny, we find that report No. 555 mentioned in report No. 557 has been supplied to the petitioner, which is clear from Serial No. 5 mentioned above. Therefore, the complaint of non-supply of daily report No. 555 is not correct. So far as report No. 542 dated 25-9-1985 referred in report No. 548 is concerned, it is mentioned in daily confidential report No. 548 casually, which is clear from the daily confidential report No. 548 dated 25-9-1985 L.I.U. which reads as under : Gopniya Dainik Sankhya 548 dinank 27-9-85 L.I.U. Moradabad. Muslim Is karyalaya ki sam sirshak dainik sankhya 542 dinank 25-9-85 ke para 5 jisme dinank 22-9-85 ko thana Galshaheed par ghatit ghatna me Muslim sampradaya ki gatividhiyon ke sambandh me ankit kiya gaya hai, ke kram me aage gyat hua hai ki ek Yamin namak vyakti jo thana Galshaheed chetra ka kukhyat sattebaj hai, ke ghar par dinank 25-9-85 ko lagbhag 10-11 baje 8-10 vyakti ekkatha hue jinme uske saath satte ka kam karne wale wa usse arthik labh prapt karne wale sahyogi the. Jinme mukhya Intzar Ahmad Vakil Yamin ka larka peerganj ka Munnu patrakar the. Jinme mukhya Intzar Ahmad Vakil Yamin ka larka peerganj ka Munnu patrakar the. In logo se Yamin ne kaha ki Saidul Rahman ki darhi katne ki aphwah ko ham logo ne phailaye hai uska asar kafi hua hai, jab tak dharmik uttejana police ke virudh ham nahi ubharenge, police wale kabu me nahi aayange. Sahar ke aman ko kisi bhi tarah bigarne me apna dhandha ho pawega. Aage nischay kiya gaya ki jahan bhi mauka mile musalmono ki baijatti karne ki baat ko aur janta me phailaya jaye. Aisa bhi gyat hua hai ki apne ghar par in logo ko bulaya hai, jahan par is visay me aur vichar vimarsh karne ki asha hai. Gatividhiyon par drishti rakhi ja rahi hai. Ha. 27/9 Jey. Upnirikshak Pragyan Moradabad, The Words " Kram me age gyant hua hai ki " clearly indicate that there was no mention of Mohd. Yameen, the petitioner in the incident of 22-9-1985. Therefore, we are satisfied that supply of this report No. 542 referred to in report No. 548 dated 25-9-1985 was not necessary to the petitioner, because it was not relied upon. In the case of Mst L. M. S. Ummu Saleem v. B. B. Gujral, AIR 1981 SC 1191 Hon'ble Sri Chinappa Reddy, has drawn a distinction between the words " relied upon " used in Ichhudevi Choraria's case, AIR 1980 SC 1983 and " Casual or passing reference "-. Referring to Khudiram Das's case (supra) his Lordship has observed as under: "It is therefore, clear that every failure to furnish copy of the document to which reference is made in the grounds of detention is not an infringement of Art. 22 (5), fatal to the order of detention, It is only failure to furnish copies of such documents as were relied upon fry the detaining authority, making it difficult for the detenu to make an effective representation, that amounts to a violation of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Art. 22 (5) In our view it is unnecessary to furnish copies of documents' to which casual or passing reference may be made in the course of narration of facts and which are not relied upon by the detaining authority in making the order of detention. " In the case before us, we are satisfied that the copy of report No. 542 dated 25-9-1985 cannot be said to be a document which was relied upon by the detaining authority in making the order of detention. Therefore the petitioner could not properly complain that as be was not supplied with a copy of the report and he was prevented from making an effective representation. Under these circumstances, to our mind there was no contravention of Section 3 (4) or 3 (5) of the Act. 13. IN the case of Khudiram Das (supra) in para 19 of the report it has been held that the material from the history sheet, which was not disclosed to the petitioner, did not form part of the grounds of detention on which the order of the grounds of detention on which the order of detention was made by the District Magistrate and approved toy the State Government ; but merely constituted other particulars communicated by the District Magistrate to the State Government under Section 3 (3) of the Act. There was, therefore, no obligation on the District Magistrate or the State Government do disclose this material to the petitioner and non-disclosure of it to the petitioner did not have the effect of invalidating the approval of the State Government to the order of detention. Khudiram Das' case (supra) has further been considered and explained in para 24 of Jagdev Singh Talvandi's case (supra) that observations in Khudiram Das's case cannot be construed as meaning that the evidence, which was collected by the detaining authority must also be furnished to the detenu. IN the instant case as we have held earlier the detaining authority did not rely upon report No. 542 dated 25-9-85, therefore, its non supply will not invalidate the detention of the petitioner. We are also satisfied that its non-supply has not prejudiced the petitioner in making the representation. 14. THE cases cited by Sri D. S. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts from this case. Khudiram Das's case we have already discussed. It does not help the petitioner in this case, rather it goes against him, Vikram Pratap Singh's case stands on a different footing. 14. THE cases cited by Sri D. S. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts from this case. Khudiram Das's case we have already discussed. It does not help the petitioner in this case, rather it goes against him, Vikram Pratap Singh's case stands on a different footing. In that case the result of the test identification parade on 7-2-85, in which the petitioner was not picked up by any witness, was not placed before the detaining authority when he passed the order of detention. Not only this, this material was also not placed before the State Government either at the time of according its approval under Section 3 (4) of the Act or at the time of the confirmation under Section 12 (1) of the Act. Therefore, this Court relying on Bhajan Lal v. State of U.P., Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15799 of 1984 decided on 25-3-85 and Nanha Singh v. Superintendent, District Jail Kanpur, 1984 ALJ 898 allowed the petition. In this case no such ground is made out. In view of the above discussions we find no merit in any one of the points urged on behalf of the petitioner. No other point was urged before us. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly not advanced any argument on the merit of the grounds of detention, which are perfectly justified. After careful scrutiny of the record and hearing the arguments of the parties, we are fully satisfied that the detention of the petitioner is fully justified and needs no interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. IN the result the petition fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.