S. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) THE District Magistrate, Jabalpur vide his order dated 11/2/1991 (Annexure-C) passed under sub-section (2) read with-sub-section (3) of section 3 of the National Security Act. 1980 directed that Mehmood alias Paggal. son. of Mohd. Razzak. aged 29 years, resident of Benisingh Ki Talaiya, Police Station Gohalpur, Jabalpur be detained under the said provision with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Thereafter, in due course, on the basis of the report of the Advisory Board, the detention order was confirmed by the State Government under sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act vide its order dated 3/4/1991 (Annexure-G) and it was specified in the said order that the detention of the said detenu would continue for a period of twelve months from the date of his detention i. e. until 10/2/1992. It is the detention of detenu Mehmood alias Paggal in the manner stated above which is challenged by his father Mohd. Razzak in this petition filed by him for the issue of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus. ( 2 ) AS we are of the opinion that the petition in question filed on behalf of the detenu deserves to be allowed on a short ground, we do not think it necessary to examine other grounds on the basis of which the impugned order of detention has been challenged. ( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the above said short ground, it is necessary to set out the provisions of section 3 of the National Security Act is so far as they are material for our present purpose. The said provisions read as follows: Power to make orders detaining certain persons (1) ***** ***** ***** (2) The Central Government or the State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that person be detained. (3) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may by order in writing, direct that during such period as may be specified in the order, such District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (2) exercise the powers conferred by the said sub-section. Provided that the period specified in an order made by the State Government under this sub-section shall not, in the first instance, exceed three months, but the State Government may, if satisfied as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend order to extend such period from time to time by any period not exceeding three months at anyone time. (Emphasis supplied) ( 4 ) NOW, in a recent decision, while interpreting the above said provisions of sub-section (2) read with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, it has been laid down by the apex Court of our country as follows: The subjective satisfaction for the exercise of power under sub-section (3) of section 3 must be based on circumstances prevailing at the date of the order or likely to prevail at a future date. The period during which the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, as the case may be, is to exercise the power provided by sub-section (2) of section 3 is to be specified in the order which would depend on the existence of circumstances in present or at a future date. If the subjective satisfaction is based on circumstances. prevailing at the date of the order the choice of period, which must not exceed three months, would have to be determined from the date of the order. If the conferment of power is considered necessary because of circumstances likely to prevail during the future period, the duration for the exercise of power must be relatable to the apprehended circumstances. Therefore, the specification of the period during which the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police is to exercise power under sub-section (2) of section 3 would depend on the subjective satisfaction as to the existence of the circumstances in present or in future. Therefore, the specification of the period during which the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police is to exercise power under sub-section (2) of section 3 would depend on the subjective satisfaction as to the existence of the circumstances in present or in future. Since, very drastic powers of detention without trial are to be conferred on subordinate officers, the State Government is expected to apply its mind and make a careful choice regarding the period during which such power shall be exercised by the subordinate officers, which would solely depend on the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail. The subjective satisfaction cannot be lightly recorded by reproducing both the alternative clauses of the statute. The subjective satisfaction on the prevailing circumstances, or circumstances that are likely to prevail at a future date is the sine qua non for the exercise of power. The use of the word or signifies either of the two situations for different periods. That, however, is not to say that the power cannot be exercised for a future period by taking into consideration circumstances prevailing on the date of the order as well as circumstances likely to prevail in future. The latter may stem from the former. For example, there may be disturbances on the date of the order and the same situation may be visualized at a future date also in which case the power may be conferred on the subordinate officers keeping both the factors in mind; but in that case the two circumstances would have to be joined by the conjunctive word and not the disjunctive word or. The use of the disjunctive word or in the Government order only indicate$ non-application of mind and obscurity in thought rendering the order of conferment of power liable to be quashed. The detention order passed in exercise of power conferred by such order is also liable to be quashed. The use of the disjunctive word or in the Government order only indicate$ non-application of mind and obscurity in thought rendering the order of conferment of power liable to be quashed. The detention order passed in exercise of power conferred by such order is also liable to be quashed. (Emphasis supplied) ( 5 ) IN the case before us, the relevant notification dated 19/12/1990, issued by the State Government in the purported exercise of its power conferred by sub-section (2) read with subsection (3) of section 3 of the Act, runs as follows: Notification F. No. 31-22/80/c-I, dated the 19th December, 1990 - Whereas, there are reports with the State Government that certain elements are active or are likely to be active to threaten the communal harmony or to commit any act prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, or to commit acts of terrorism prejudicial to the security of the State; And whereas, having regard to the circumstances prevailing in the areas within the local limits of jurisdiction of all District Magistrates in the State, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (No. 65 of 1980), the State hereby directs that all the District Magistrates in the State may, during the period from 1st January, 1991 to 31st March, 1991 if satisfied as provided in sub-section (2) of the said section, exercise the powers conferred by subsection (2) of the said section 3. It is apparent from a perusal of the marked portion in the above said notification dated 19/12/1990 that the same suffers and is vitiated in the same manner as was the Maharashtra Government order dated 6/1/1990 which was under consideration before the Supreme Court in Abhay Shridhar Ambulkars case (supra ). ( 6 ) IN the result, we allow the writ petition and quash the above said notification dated 19/12/1990 issued by the State Government in the purported exercise of its power conferred by sub section (2) read with sub-section (3) of section 3 of the National Security Act. ( 6 ) IN the result, we allow the writ petition and quash the above said notification dated 19/12/1990 issued by the State Government in the purported exercise of its power conferred by sub section (2) read with sub-section (3) of section 3 of the National Security Act. Consequently, the detention order dated 11/2/1991 (Annexure-C) passed by the District Magistrate, Jabalpur against detenu Mehmood alias Paggal, as also the confirmatory order dated 3/4/1991 (Annexure-G) passed by the State Government are also quashed as being without authority of law. We direct that the said detenu shall be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be detained in connection with any other matter. Petition allowed. .