R. K. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Misc. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition filed by one Milan Kumar, resident of 208-A, Southern Dalmandi, Police Station Sadar Bazar, Meerut is directed against the detention order dated 8-6-1987 (Annexure 11) passed by the District Magistrate, Meerut under Section 3 (2), of the National Security Act (herein-after called the Act in exercise of powers under Section 3 (3) of the Act. The aforesaid detention order was served on the petitioner on the same day at his residence along with the grounds of detention, which read as under:. . (Verunacular Matter Ommited ). . ( 2 ) THE petitioner made his representation against the aforesaid detention order to the State Government on 12/6/1987, which was rejected on 22/6/1987 after due process. The fact about the rejection of the aforesaid representation was conveyed to the petitioner through the District authorities on 22/6/1987. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board, which heard the petitioner on 21/7/1987 and submitted its opinion to the State Government. Thereafter, the detention of the petitioner was confirmed by the State Government on 3/8/1987 for a period of twelve months from the date of his detention. ( 3 ) THE main point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition is that the allegation of the petitioner regarding inciting of communal frenzy or whipping up of communal passions being wholly vague, the same could not form basis for the detention of the petitioner. Therefore, the satisfaction of the District Magistrate is wholly mechanical and has been arrived at on wholly extraneous considerations, which vitiates the detention. ( 4 ) ON the other hand Sri Girdhar Malviya, learned Additional Government Advocate referring Paragraphs 16 and, 23 of the counter affidavit of the District Magistrate, Meerut vehemently contended that the activities of the petitioner dated 22/5/1987 and 3/6/1987 are two different grounds of detention and it will not vitiate due to any vagueness regarding the subsequent activities of the petitioner after his release on bail on 7/6/1987. ( 5 ) IT is quite clear on a plain reading of the language of the aforesaid ground of detention that even after his release on bail in a previous offence, was still spreading communal feelings, which had led the authority to pass the detention order in dispute against the petitioner. ( 5 ) IT is quite clear on a plain reading of the language of the aforesaid ground of detention that even after his release on bail in a previous offence, was still spreading communal feelings, which had led the authority to pass the detention order in dispute against the petitioner. No material has been brought on the record by either party which can throw any light on the activities dated 8-7-1987 of the petitioner. On inquiry being made by us Sri Malviya, learned Additional Government Advocate has shown us the following confidential police report dated 8-6-1987 regarding the activities of the petitioner 8-6- 1987 which reads as under:. . (Verunacular Matter Ommited ). . This report also makes it quite clear that the petitioner was detained after release on bail for his activities of spreading communal feelings by moving in the city here and there. According to the GD. report No. 27 dated 8-6-1987, copy of which has been attached with this writ petition, SI. Suhiram Singh had escorted the petitioner from Fatehgarh jail and reported his arrival at police station Sadar Bazar, Meerut at 4 p. m. Further according to that report the petitioner was sent to his house in a police escort because there was curfew in Meerut city. The entry does not bear any time of such sending of the petitioner to his residence. According to the next entry No. 30 of the same date, the warrant under National Security Act was received at the police station at 5. 05 p. m. on 8-6-1987. From G. D. report No. 34, it is clear that Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, respondent No. 3 left the police station for serving the warrant on the petitioner at 6. 10 p. m. and the petitioner was arrested at about 7 p. m. on 8-6-1987 vide G D. report No. 36. ( 6 ) IT is clear from the aforesaid facts that after the release from Fatehgarh jail the petitioner was made to reach his house in police custody at 4 p. m. on 8-6-1987 and the warrant of the arrest was received at the police station at 5. 05 p. m. within an hour on the same day. ( 6 ) IT is clear from the aforesaid facts that after the release from Fatehgarh jail the petitioner was made to reach his house in police custody at 4 p. m. on 8-6-1987 and the warrant of the arrest was received at the police station at 5. 05 p. m. within an hour on the same day. Under these circumstances, we find it difficult to believe that within an hour of his arrival from jail, instead of meeting and mixing with his family members, the petitioner started inciting communal feelings by moving here and there in curfew area and police watched all his activities and reported the same to the District Magistrate who passed the detention order in dispute and a warrant was also prepared within one hour and received at the police station at 5. 05 p. m. as aforesaid. From these facts and circumstances of the case we are convinced that this ground was honest and it was all cooked up matter to which the District Magistrate had not applied his mind and mechanically passed the order of detention on already cooked up materials. Therefore, the order of detention dated 8/6/1987 vitiates. ( 7 ) NOT only this the order of detention in dispute suffers from absolute vagueness also. Neither the date nor the time nor the place of the alleged activities dated 8/6/1987 are at all mentioned either in the report of the police or in the ground. The actual words spoken by the petitioner have also not been stated therein. Therefore, the ground is absolutely vague. We have no doubt that the incident dated 22/5/1987 was only a background and the real ground for passing the detention order in dispute was the activities dated 8/6/1987 of the petitioner, watched and reported by the police after his release on bail as aforesaid. In this background the assertions made by the District Magistrate in Paragraph 23 of his counter affidavit appears to us a material improvement after consultations and deliberations. The District Magistrate has himself stated in Paragraph 16 of his counter affidavit as under: From the perusal of those papers the deponent had no doubt that after his being dropped at his residence the petitioner incited communal violence. The District Magistrate has himself stated in Paragraph 16 of his counter affidavit as under: From the perusal of those papers the deponent had no doubt that after his being dropped at his residence the petitioner incited communal violence. The deponent is not aware of various other entries mentioned in the Paragraphs under reply, and in any case all that the deponent has to say is the fact that since the fact of the petitioner again indulging in communal violence was brought to the notice of the deponent after the petitioner was released on bail, the deponent considered the matter and being of the view that his detention was necessary for the maintenance of public order the order of detention was passed against him. ( 8 ) IN view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the ground of detention was nonest and the District Magistrate had not applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and passed the order mechanically. In any case the ground of detention is absolutely vague. The date, time and place of the activities of 8-6-1987 are not at all mentioned nor the actual words spoken by the petitioner have been stated therein. Under these circumstances, the detention order dated 8-6-1987 passed by the District Magistrate, Meerut against the petitioner is wholly illegal and is liable to be quashed. ( 9 ) IN the result the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition succeeds and is allowed. The detention order dated 8/6/1987 passed by the District Magistrate, Meerut against the petitioner is quashed. The petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with some other case. Petition allowed .