JUDGMENT - H.D. PATEL, J.:---The petitioner Veersasing Lakhasing Aulak was detained by order dated 19-10-1985 passed by the District Magistrate, Nanded, respondent No. 1 under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as the "Act" in order to prevent him from acting prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. His representation was also rejected by the State Government, respondent No. 2 on 18-12-1985. Both these orders are impugned in this petition. 2. The main ground made out for the order of detention was that a secret meeting was held on 15-9-1985 at Langar Saheb Gurudwara, Nanded where it was conspired and decided to murder the President of the Gurudwara Board, Sarder Laddusingh Mahajan, Secretary Sardar Gulabsingh Khandarwale and Member-Sardar Amrikhsingh Kumar by taking an opportunity during the Dassera Festival. The conspiracy was hatched because Sardar Gulabsingh and Sardar Amrikhsingh had gone to Delhi to congratulate the Prime Minister of India for having signed the Punjab accord. The report of the secret meeting was given by an informer, whose name is not disclosed. The information was from a regular source from a person who has been deputed to inform about the activities of Sikhs in and around the Gurudwara. According to the informer's report, the meeting was attended by 15 persons secretly and inflamatory speeches were given in this meeting. The names of 15 persons who have participated in the meeting were also supplied. 3. It was further alleged that thereafter a closer watch was kept on the activities of the Sikha in Langar Saheb Gurudwara, Nanded. The measure included the posting of Police Constable No. 943, Shri Sangle. He is said to have further reported that another meeting was held on 17-9-1985 at 6 p.m. in Langar Saheb Gurudwara. A report of the third meeting held on 19-9-85 at the same time and place is also made by the said Police Constable. According to this report, the persons who attended the secret meeting on 15-9-1985 also attended the subsequent meetings on 17-9-85 and 19-9-1985. As to what transpired on 17-9-85 and 19-9-1985 is not disclosed in the report. 4. It is further stated in the grounds of detention that the District Magistrate, Nanded called upon the District Superintendent of Police to trace out the criminal record of all the 15 persons who were conspirators in all the three meetings. As to what transpired on 17-9-85 and 19-9-1985 is not disclosed in the report. 4. It is further stated in the grounds of detention that the District Magistrate, Nanded called upon the District Superintendent of Police to trace out the criminal record of all the 15 persons who were conspirators in all the three meetings. It appears that the District Magistrate found it fit to take action only against 4 out of 15 conspirators who had criminal records. The other grounds mentioned in the order of detention area narrated below : a) That the petitioner is an intimate friend of one Kulbirsingh Ramsingh who was involved in dacoities, robberies and thefts and is also involved in the cases under the Arms Act. On 15-9-85 Kulbirsingh was found moving in the City in a suspicious condition and upon his personal search a Revolver and live cartridges were found in his possession without having licence for the same. A case under the Arms Act was registered against Kulbirsingh and he was arrested. It is alleged that the petitioner stood surety for Kulbirsingh and got him released on bail. It is alleged that the petitioner and Kulbirsingh were found moving in the City on motor cycle in such manner which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. b) On 21-1-1981, the petitioner was prosecuted for committing affray on public road and case was registered against him at Police Station, Vazirabad-Crime No. 14/81 under section 160 I.P.C. and the petitioner was found guilty. c) On 29-7-1981, the petitioner and Kulbirsingh while moving in a car gave dash to a scooterist and ran away without giving medical aid to the injured. P.S.I. Shri Javale apprehended the petitioner, At that time, the petitioner instigated Kulbirsingh to kill P.S.I. Javale and then Kulbirsingh made an attack on P.S.I. but P.S.I. escaped unhurt. The case was registered as Crime No. 203/81 under sections 307, 353, 506 read with section 34 I.P.C. at Police Station, Vazirabad and Kulbirsingh was convicted. d) On 13-7-1282, on a trifling matter, the petitioner and his driver fired at Satramsingh and assaulted him with sword and Lathi. The case was registered as Crime No. 184/82, under section 307 read with section 34 I.P.C. at Police Station Vazirabad." 5. d) On 13-7-1282, on a trifling matter, the petitioner and his driver fired at Satramsingh and assaulted him with sword and Lathi. The case was registered as Crime No. 184/82, under section 307 read with section 34 I.P.C. at Police Station Vazirabad." 5. The main ground relating to the holding of secret meeting on 15-9-85 and conspiring to murder office bearers of the Gurudwara Board was vehemently attacked on behalf of the petitioner by submitting that such a ground, apart from being false and frivolous, has to be rejected for non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority and that such a ground cannot be held to be subversive of public order and, therefore, the detention on the ostensible ground of preventing the petitioner from acting in the manner prejudicial to public order can never be justified. 6. A careful perusal of this ground of detention would disclose that the District Magistrate, Nanded has not himself perused the report of the secret meeting which is stated to have been in possession of the inspector, Vazirabad Police Station. In such an eventuality, it is difficult to believe that the District Magistrate, Nanded arrived at the subjective satisfaction regarding the involvement of the petitioner in that incident. 7. The non-application of mind can well be established from the facts stated in the grounds relating to secret meeting and alleged conspiracy. Though much emphasis is made on the holding of secret meeting in Langer Saheb Gurudwara on 15-9-85, it appears from the documents supplied to the petitioner that the alleged meeting was not held secretly but other also had an access to that meeting. After receipt of the information from the informer on 16-5-1985, it is stated in the grounds that Police Constable, Shri Sangle was posted to keep a watch on the activities of Sikhs. He, therefore, comes in picture after 16-9-1985 and not before. It is also stated in the grounds of detention that Police Constable, Shri Sangle made report able subsequent meetings held on 17th and 19th September, 1985. Surprisingly enough, amongst the documents supplied to the petitioner, also includes a report dated 15-9-85 (Exh. D) written by Police Constable, Shri Sangle about the secret meeting having been held on that day and the conspiracy hatched. The report also discloses the names of 15 conspirators as having participated in the meeting and the decision to murder three persons of Gurudwara Board. D) written by Police Constable, Shri Sangle about the secret meeting having been held on that day and the conspiracy hatched. The report also discloses the names of 15 conspirators as having participated in the meeting and the decision to murder three persons of Gurudwara Board. Apparently, Police Constable, Shri Sangle also had an access to the so-called meeting which can hardly be described as secret. In this banks ground, even the informant's report loses its value. The grounds do not disclose where actually the meeting was held except mentioning that it was at the Langar Saheb Gurudwara which is a public place accessible to anybody. Once a doubt is cast that the meeting held on 15-9-85 was not a secret meeting, the decision taken at such a meeting also cannot be believed. We cannot conceive of 15 persons conspiring together to murder the members of the Gurudwara Board in a meeting which cannot be described as secret or where other persons like police Constable, Shri Sangle was present. We are clearly of the opinion that no secret meeting was held either on 15-9-85 or on subsequent dates with a view to hatch a conspiracy to murder three persons of the Gurudwaras Board as stated in the grounds of detention by the District Magistrate, Nanded, respondents No. 1. Our conclusion is further confirmed by the fact that the District Magistrate, Nanded did not act immediately on the report of the informer but requested the District Superintendent of Police to trace out the past criminal record of all the persons and only 4 of them were found fit to be proceeded against under the Act. This indicates that the holding of secret meeting was by itself not enough to detain the four persons, including the petitioner without support of the past criminal record. Having disbelieved the main ground of detention, it is difficult for us to uphold the order of detention dated 19-10-1985. The said order stands completely vitiated. Since we find that there is no substance in this ground, it would be only an exercise in futility to decide whether such a ground could be held to be subversive of public order. Having disbelieved the main ground of detention, it is difficult for us to uphold the order of detention dated 19-10-1985. The said order stands completely vitiated. Since we find that there is no substance in this ground, it would be only an exercise in futility to decide whether such a ground could be held to be subversive of public order. Suffice it to say that in case there was little substance in the holding of secret meeting, the police authorities would have investigated the matter at length and booked all the persons responsible by prosecuting them under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code. 8. It was next contented that the three incidents dated 21-1-81, 29-7-81 and 13-7-82 mentioned in the grounds of detention were too remote and not proximate to the order of detention and, therefore, even on this ground the order dated 19-10-1985 deserves to be quashed. It was further submitted that for the incidents of 29-7-81 and 13-7-82, the petitioner was acquitted by the competent Court of the charges framed against him. These grounds, therefore, could not be used against the petitioner for detaining him under section 3(2) of the Act. There is substantial force in the submissions made. 9. The incidents complained of in the grounds of detention occurred on 21-1-81, 29-7-81 13-7-82. The grounds obviously are stale and not approximate to the time when the detention order was made and, therefore, such grounds were irrelevant and vitiate the order of detention. For this proportion, reliance can safely be placed on a decision of Supreme Court in (1983)4 S.C.R. 443, (Kamlakar Prasad Chaturvedi v. State of M.P. and another)1. The detention of the detenu was also not justified for the incidents of 29-7-1981 and 13-7-1981 in as much as the detenu had been acquitted of the charges much before the date of detention order was passed as held in (1984)4 S.S.C. 400, (Ajay Dixit v. State of U.P. and others)2. 10. What remains now is the ground relating to the alleged friendship of the petitioner with Kulbirsingh who is alleged to be involved in dacoities, robberies and thefts and also involved in cases under the Arms Act. 10. What remains now is the ground relating to the alleged friendship of the petitioner with Kulbirsingh who is alleged to be involved in dacoities, robberies and thefts and also involved in cases under the Arms Act. The allegation against the petitioner was that he stood surety for Kulbirsihgh when he was being prosecuted under the Arms Act and that the petitioner was moving on the motor-cycle in such a manner that it was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Both these allegations cannot by themselves form the basis of the order of detention, even of the allegation, as they are, are presumed to be true. However, there are no documents to support these allegations on record nor the copies of those documents supplied to the petitioner for making effective representation to the State Government. In our opinion even this ground cannot be upheld and it also vitiates the impugned order of detention. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of detention dated 19-10-1985 passed by the District Magistrate Nanded, respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the order passed on 18-12-1985 by the State Government, respondent No. 2 on the representation made by the petitioner is also set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. Order accordingly. -----