JUDGMENT Mr. J.K. Mathur, J. - The Petitioner has challenged the order of detention passed under Section 3 of the National Security Act by District Magistrate Ghaziabad on 19.9.1991. 2. The order of detention was passed as given above on the basis of an incident took place on 22.2.1991 and another incident dated 10.3.1990. According to the grounds furnished to the petitioner on 22.2.1991 one Prem Sagar Dadu was going from his house to his kiln in Rajhati in Gypsy No. DNC 4218 When he reached near the culvert of village Sahatpura on the road along Anoopshahar branch canal, the detenu and his accomplices stopped the said Gypsy and abducted Prem Sagar Dadu with Gypsy with the intention of obtaining ransom. This abduction created terror in the adjoining area and disturbed the public order. The businessmen could not get out of their houses because of fear. The Public stopped the traffic on the highway Simbhawali and surrounded the Police Station. A report was lodged at P.S. Simbhawali at Crime No. 37 of 1991 under Section 364 I.P.C. During investigation offences under Sections 364 and 366 I.P.C. were added. Witnesses informed about the complicity of the detenue in this crime. 3. On 10.3.91 the detenu along with some other persons and Prem Sagar Dadu were going on Niwadi Road Near Modi Nagar. The Circle Officer and the Inspector of Modi Nagar Police Station got the information and surrounded the detenu and his companions who fired at the police party. It caused terror in the adjoining areas and people started running. The detenu was arrested with fire-arms and Prem Sagar Dadu was got released. A report under Section 307 I.P.C. was lodged at Crime No. 139 of 1991 and another under the Arms Act was registered at crime No. 140 of 1991. The grounds also contain a list of 21 cases which have been registered against the petitioner. It goes on to say that the petitioner habitually commits serious offences and is detained in jail at Meerut. It is also stated that the application for bail given by him has been allowed and on his release there is likelihood of disturbance of public order. 4. It goes on to say that the petitioner habitually commits serious offences and is detained in jail at Meerut. It is also stated that the application for bail given by him has been allowed and on his release there is likelihood of disturbance of public order. 4. This order has been challenged firstly on the grounds that there was delay in disposal of representation moved by the petitioner and also on the ground that relevant material was not placed before the Detaining Authority and was also not supplied to the petitioner and that complete material was not placed before the Detaining Authority with a view to mislead him into passing this order 5. We have heard Km. Mridul Rakesh appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the Government Advocate. 6. In the present case it is not disputed that the representation was made by the petitioner on 8.10.1991 and was received by the Detaining Authority the same day. It was decided on 29.10.1991 and communicated to the petitioner od 1.11.1991. 7. It has been urged on behalf of petitioner that their is delay in consideration of the representation. 8. The only time which has not properly been explained is the delay accused in getting report from the Sponsoring Authority. According to the Detaining Authority as stated by him in his affidavit, he had sent the representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police on 9.10.1991 for report. When the report was not received a reminder was sent on 15.10.1991. The report was received by him on 16.10.1991. The explanation for these seven days has sought to be given by Jagat Singh, S.I. According to him the representation had been received by the S.H.O. on 9.10.1991 but he went to Lucknow on 10.10.1991, he came back to Ghaziahad on 12.10.1991 and carte to Simbbawali after giving report on 13.10.1991 on 14.10.1991. 9. This affidavit has been challenged on the ground that no affidavit has been given by the officer who was actually dealing with the matter. It was also urged that the S.I. could have given the report on 10.10.1991 itself or in any case he had cone back on 12.10.1991 and then he could have given the report on that date. The Superintendent of Police also admittedly detained the report with him for two days having received it on 13.10.1991. 10. It was also urged that the S.I. could have given the report on 10.10.1991 itself or in any case he had cone back on 12.10.1991 and then he could have given the report on that date. The Superintendent of Police also admittedly detained the report with him for two days having received it on 13.10.1991. 10. The report had to be given by the Senior Superintendent of Police after receiving it from the S.H.O. of Simbhawali. The time taken in obtaining the report in this case was almost one week in-as- much as the District Magistrate sent the papers on 8th on which they were received by the Superintendent of Police who sent back the report only on 15th. The explanation for the delay has not been given by the person who was dealing with the papers and even the explanation as given by the S.I. Jagat Singh does not explain the delay of four days in keeping the representation by the S.H.O. 11. The learned Counsel for the State has relied upon the case of Kamrunnissa v. Union of India. reported in 1991 SCC at page 128. In this case it has been said that the delay has to he examined in each of the cases and whether it has been properly explained or not one facts of the case. In that case the delay was examined by the Supreme Court which was satisfied that the representation had been considered with due promptitude. 12. As discussed above, in the present case the same cannot he said. 13. The other ground taken on behalf of the petitioner is about the relevant material being not placed before the Detaining Authority. 14. According to the petitioner he had earlier been detained in 1989 under the National Security Act and released on 3.1 1.1989. He was again detained on 24.7.1990. and released only on 19.9.1991. on which date the present order of detention was passed. 15. It has been urged firstly that no papers relating to either of the earlier detentions were placed before the Detaining Authority nor was the fact that the petitioner was detained and was to be released on 19.9.1992 placed before the authority concerned or considered by him. 16. on which date the present order of detention was passed. 15. It has been urged firstly that no papers relating to either of the earlier detentions were placed before the Detaining Authority nor was the fact that the petitioner was detained and was to be released on 19.9.1992 placed before the authority concerned or considered by him. 16. The next submission is that a list of 21 cases was relied upon by the Sponsoring Authority to point out the cases which had been registered against the petitioner hut it was not mentioned that the petitioner had been acquitted in substantial number of those cases, leading the authority to believe that those cases had been registered and were still pending against the petitioner. Had he been informed that in a number of these cases the petitioner had been acquitted, the Detaining Authority could have come to another conclusion about the desirability of petitioner's detention. 17. Lastly it was urged that earlier detention orders themselves having been passed on these cases, they could again not be considered for the present order of detention. 18. The fact that the petitioner had been detained earlier is also not disputed and in fact the list of cases also mentions case under the National Security Act at serial No. 21. However, there is no mention in the report of the Detaining Authority that the petitioner was still detained and was likely to be released on 19.9:1991, while the Sponsoring Authority reported that the petitioner was likely to be released having been granted bail. 19. No specific information as contained in the earlier order of detention has been given to be necessary or relevant in the present case on behalf of the petitioner. Non-production of order by itself would be material only if it were to convey some information which would have a bearing upon the order of the Detaining Authority about the desirability of the detention of the petitioner . 20. However, the fact that the petitioner had been acquitted in a number of these cases which had been given in the list and which fact has not been disputed be the opposite parties in their counter affidavit, was not informed. The Sponsoring Authority merely informed that 21 cases had been registered against the petitioner. This was only half the truth. These cases were registered between 1986 and 1991. The Sponsoring Authority merely informed that 21 cases had been registered against the petitioner. This was only half the truth. These cases were registered between 1986 and 1991. If it was a fact that in substantial number of cases the petitioner had not been found guilty and acquitted, such information had a clear potential of affecting a decision about the detention of the petitioner. Not placing this information before the Detaining Authority, therefore, substantially affected the decision to detain. Thus the relevant material was not placed before the Detaining Authority and not communicated to hi m by the Sponsoring Authority. This by itself would be a reason sufficient to find that the detention order was vitiated and is liable to be quashed. 21. We are of the view that the petition has to be allowed on this ground alone. The other contentions need not be gone into. 22. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the order of detention passed against the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be set at liberty unless he is required to be detained in any other case.