JUDGMENT S.I.Zafri, J. 1. The aforesaid writ petition no. 5765 of 1989 connected with writ petition no. 5766 of 1989 have been filed by lsrar alias Saroo and Inam respectively impugning the orders of detention passed against them dated 29-1-198V by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar separately. The aforesaid orders were served on the petitioners on 31-9-1989 during the course of incarceration of the petitioners in the District Jail Muzaffarnagar. The aforesaid two orders of detention were confirmed on 17th March 1969 by the State Government. 2. The detention orders passed against the petitioners under section 3 (ii) of National Security Act 1980, consist of two grounds. The first ground relates to an occurrence alleged to have taken place on 11-1-1989 ?at about 745 P.M. near the house of Meeran Dei situated in Mohalla Bagh Janki Das P. S. Kotwali District Muzaffarnagar in which complainant Maqdoon Ahmad had sustained a single gun shot injury in his leg and also one Smt. Shaida alias Munni a passer-by had received injuries as a result of being hit by a stray pellet from the firing resorted to by the petitioner. It was further stated in the orders that as a result of the firing resorted to by the petitioners, the people of the area had become panicky and terrified so much so that they scrambled to their houses and closed the doors and windows of their houses out of fear and panic. The second grounds pertains to an occurrence which is shown to have taken place in the year 198S. In the said occurrence, petitioner Israr was attributed to have caused gun-shot injury to the aforesaid Maqdoom Ahmad complainant on 9-12-1983 at about 5'30 P.M. It was further alleged that although a abroachment had been brought about between the parties on the intercession of the elderly people of the locality, the petitioners continued to nurse ill-will and animosity towards the complainant. The cauldron of his ill-will and animosity boiled over on 11-1-1989 when he caused gun-shot injury to complainant Maqdoom again. In nut-shell, the ground forming the basis of detention order against the petitioners boils down to a solitary occurrence which had taken place on 11-1-1989. The cauldron of his ill-will and animosity boiled over on 11-1-1989 when he caused gun-shot injury to complainant Maqdoom again. In nut-shell, the ground forming the basis of detention order against the petitioners boils down to a solitary occurrence which had taken place on 11-1-1989. It is worthy of mention that a cross report of the aforesaid occurrence dated 11-1-1989 was also filed in the shape of a complaint in the court of CJ.M. Muzaffarnagar on 16-1-1989 which fact has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the State. 3. From the record of the case, it transpires that the proposals for passing the impugned orders of detention against the petitioners by the District Magistrate; were forwarded by the prosecuting agency to the S. P. Muzaffarnagar on 27th January, 1989 which the Superintendent of Police transmitted onwards to the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar on 28-1-1989 and ultimately the impugned order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar on 29-1-1989. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the State. Sri Shamshad Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the above two grounds relied upon by the District Magistrate for detaining the petitioners under National Security Act are incapable of causing any disturbance of public order or displacement of the tempo of public life and the aforesaid two incidents can be ascribed to the problems relating to law and order. It was next contended by the learned counsel that the second ground is too stale to be taken into account for purposes of passing detention orders against the applicants- petitioners inasmuch as that the occurrence in the case had taken place as far back as five years, hence the ground cannot form part of the detention order or this ground cannot be relied upon to form the basis of detention order. It is next submitted by the learned counsel that the detention order rests on the solitary occurrence dated 11-1-1989 that two resulted from enmity between the parties and it cannot be calculated to have created fear or panic in the locality. It is next submitted by the learned counsel that the detention order rests on the solitary occurrence dated 11-1-1989 that two resulted from enmity between the parties and it cannot be calculated to have created fear or panic in the locality. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the occurrence in the case had taken place after the sun had set in and it was dark enough and the occurrence had lasted for a very short duration and so it cannot be said that the act in connection with the occurrence was germane to public order and in contrast, it posed a law and order problem. The learned counsel for the State has placed reliance on Golam Hussain alias Gama v. Police Commissioner, Calcutta, AIR 1974 SC 1336 . Adverting to the decision of this case, the learned counsel submitted that in a case of similar nature, the Honourable Supreme Court has upheld the order of detention* passed under section 3 of Maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971. We have very carefully gone thorough the aforesaid decision and we lean to the view that the facts and circumstances of the case were quite different and the same cannot be applied to the present case, inasmuch as in the case against Golam Hussain alias Gama, it was said that on 8-10-W72 at about 22,25 hrs, detenue Golam Hussein along with his associates armed with Bambos, Soda Water bottles, created a great disturbance of public order on Gouri Shanker Lane in front of premises no. 8 by burling bombs indiscriminately with a view to attack one Jeeban Paul at 8, Gauri Shanker lane in retaliation to an earlier quarrel that had taken place with Jeeban Paul. The occurrence had terrorised the locality and threw out of gear the normal life stream of the residents of the said locality amounting to public order. The second occurrence took place on 9-11-1972 sometimes between 0445 hrs when the petitioner Golam Hussain along with his associates armed with brick-bats, sodawater bottles, bombs, Poles, created a great disturbance of public order at Gauri Shanker Lane and Abinash Kaviraj Street by hurling soda-water bottles, brickbats indiscriminately with a view to overawe the organisers of the Kalipuja that took place in front of 8 Gauri Shanker Lane and thereby to terrorise the locality. As a result, the lights of the above puja pandal were damaged. As a result, the lights of the above puja pandal were damaged. This occurrence was in sequel to an incident that took place earlier at about 04.30 hrs when the associates of petitioner Bendone Kumar and others threw bear bottles at Kali Puja Pandal at 8, Gauri Shanker Lane where some females were then dancing. 5. From the facts and circumstances of the case as given above, it is quite apparent that the act perpaterated by Golam Hussain and his associates had created fear and panic by as a result of hurling of bombs and the missiles of soda water bottles, bear bottles etc on a group of persons at a public place. Now retreating to the present case, the distinguishing feature is that the order of detention was passed against the petitioners on the basis of a solitary over act resulting in a single injury to an individual and also to a passer-by after sun-set and in this view of the matter, we feel pursuaded to the view that the alleged act of the petitioners does not involve disturbance of public order and it merely posed a law and order problem. 6. The next submission canvassed by the learned counsel is that though cross-version of the petitioners' case was contained in the complaint filed in the court of C. J. M. Muzaffarnagar as early as on 16-1-1989 but on 29th January, 1989 when the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar passed the impugned order, neither the cross version was placed before the District Magistrate nor was it taken into account for arriving at his subjective satisfaction. It is further submitted that there was ample time for the authorities to have obtained a copy of the aforesaid complaint in order to place the same before the Authority passing the order of detention against the petitioners. We have bestowed our thoughtful considerations to this aspect of the matter and we also feel that it was the duty of the prosecuting agency to have obtained a copy of the complaint and place the same before the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar in order to enable him to take into account the contents of the aforesaid complaint before passing the orders of detention against the petitioners. On this score also, the orders of detention passed against the petitioners are invalid. 7. On this score also, the orders of detention passed against the petitioners are invalid. 7. Reverting to the discussions centring round the grounds which formed the basis of the detention orders passed against the petitioners, upon a conspectus of the discussions made supra, we come to a conclusion that the two grounds forming the basis of the detention orders dated 29-1-1989 passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar are incapable of constituting materials for disturbance of public order and the two incidents merely posed a law and order problem. In the ultimate analysis, the detention orders passed against the petitioners are liable to be %et aside. 8. It is worthy to mention here that personal liberty of an individual has been given an honoured place in the fundamental rights which our constitution has guarded against illegal and arbitrary deprivation and this court is under a duty as veil as is also invested with a power to enforce that fundamental right. In the case in hand, there remains a solitary incident which also resulted from a long-drawn enmity, on which the detention orders against the petitioners are grounded. Aprobe into the facts and circumstances of the case revealed that the incident posed a law and order problem and did not warrant detention of the petitioners under National Security Act. Hence, the petitioners cannot be detained under the National Security Act and divested of there fundamental rights as enshrined under the Constitution. In the result, both the petitions are allowed and the orders of detention dated 29-1-1989 passed against the petitioners by the District Magistrate Muzaffarnagar are quashed. Israr alias Saroo and Inam, petitioners shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Petitions allowed.