JUDGMENT - DUDHAT M.L., J.:---The only important point which is to be decided in this Criminal writ petition is as to whether failure on the part of respondent No. 2, the State Government, to send the document on the basis of which the grounds of detention were formulated vitiate the order of detention on the ground of non-compliance of section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980. 2. The petitioner-detenu was served with the order of detention on November 25, 1992 (which was dated November 5, 1992, passed by the Commissioner of Police respondent No. 1, under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980). Mr. Tripathi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-detenu, contended in his petition, more particularly in ground No. 5(J) at page 7 of the petition, that respondent No. 2 after its approval failed to send the documents on the basis of which the grounds of detention were formulated and, therefore, it was not possible for respondent No. 3 Union of India, to exercise its power under section 14 of the National Security Act, 1980, effectively. It is, therefore, further contended that since respondent No. 2 failed to send the aforesaid documents to respondent No. 3, the right of the petitioner to get an affective order in his favour has been snatched and, therefore, the impugned order of detention has become illegal as the same was in contravention of the mandate under section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980. 3. With reference to the aforesaid factual statement about not sending the documents to the Central Government, respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit which is at page 93 of this petition. In para 2 of this affidavit filed, on behalf of respondent No. 2, by one Mr. M.T. Atre, Desk Officer, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Bombay, it is stated with reference to para 5(J) that the detention order was approved by the State Government on November 16, 1992 and immediately on November 17, 1992, report under section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980, was forwarded to the Government of India. Along with this report copies of detention order, committal Order, grounds of detention as formulated by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, approval order were forwarded to the Government of India. The report sent to the Government of India was in English. Along with this report copies of detention order, committal Order, grounds of detention as formulated by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, approval order were forwarded to the Government of India. The report sent to the Government of India was in English. However, excepting the aforementioned contentions there is nothing in the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 to show that in fact all the relevant documents on the basis of which the grounds of detention were formulated were sent by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3 as per the mandate under section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980. 4. We have also gone through the affidavit filed by respondent No. 3 which is at page 81 of the petition. The said affidavit is filed by one Ishwar Singh, Desk Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit he refers to the averments made by the petitioner in ground No. 5(J) of the petition. However, in the entire affidavit it is not stated that respondent No. 3 received the relevant documents from respondent No. 2 on the basis of which the grounds of detention were formulated against the petitioner detenue. After going through the aforesaid factual position it is clear that in this particular case after passing the order of detention on November 5, 1992 the State Government sent only the grounds of detention to respondent No. 3 unaccompanied by the documents on the basis of which the grounds of detention were formulated against the petitioner-detenue. On the basis of the aforesaid facts it was argued on behalf of the petitioner-detenu that the failure on the part of respondent No. 2 to send the documents on the basis of which the grounds of detention were formulated, vitiated the order of detention dated November 5, 1992. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Page, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2, contended that for compliance of section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980, it is not incumbent on respondent No. 2 to send the documents on the basis of which the grounds of detention were formulated. Mr. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Page, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2, contended that for compliance of section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980, it is not incumbent on respondent No. 2 to send the documents on the basis of which the grounds of detention were formulated. Mr. Page also contended that presuming that sending of the documents on which the grounds of detention were based is incumbent upon respondent No. 2, in the present case there is sufficient evidence to show that the provisions of section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980, have been complied with. Now, in order to understand the rival contentions in the right perspective we will have to go through the provisions of section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980. The said section 3(5) reads as under: "Section 3(5) : When any order is made or approved by the State Government under this section, the State Government shall, within seven days, report the fact to the Central Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in the opinion of the State Government, have a bearing on the necessity for the order." As per the aforesaid provision it is incumbent on the part of respondent No. 2 State Government to send the grounds on the basis of which the order of detention has been made. It is an admitted position that the aforesaid section 3(5) is there on the statute book as one of the safeguards to protect the innocent person. Under section 14 of the National Security Act, 1980, the Central Government is empowered to revoke the order of detention passed by the State Government. Keeping this in view it is clear that the provisions under section 3(5) are made so that the Central Government is in a position to apply its mind effectively in a given case to come to the conclusion as to whether the order of detention passed by respondent No. 2 is to be revoked or not. Keeping this in view it is clear that the provisions under section 3(5) are made so that the Central Government is in a position to apply its mind effectively in a given case to come to the conclusion as to whether the order of detention passed by respondent No. 2 is to be revoked or not. This being the position, prima facie, we are of the opinion that it is not possible for respondent No. 3 to exercise its power under section 14 of the National Security Act, 1980, merely on going through the grounds, on which the detenu is detained, unaccompanied by the relevant documents on the basis of which the grounds of detention were formulated. At this position we may also point out that this phraseology used in section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980, "grounds on which the order has been made "is used in the same Act under sections 8 and 10. Under section 8(1) of the National Security Act, 1980, when a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the Order shall, as soon as may be, but ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than ten days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the appropriate Government. There is catena of decisions on section 8(1) wherein the Supreme Court has held that the expression "grounds on which the order has been made" includes not only the conclusions of fact but also all the basic facts on which those conclusions were founded. The Detaining Authority has not only to give the factual inferences viz. the grounds of detention but also the factual material which led to such factual inferences. It is an admitted position that the Supreme Court has interpreted the words "the grounds on which the order has been made" to mean "not only the grounds but also include the documents or material on which the order of detention is based". Since, under section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980, the same provision "the grounds on which the order has been made" is used, the same will have to be interpreted as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Since, under section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980, the same provision "the grounds on which the order has been made" is used, the same will have to be interpreted as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Under section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA, 1974, also the legislature has used the same phraseology viz. that the authority should communicate to the person detained the grounds on which the order of detention has been made. While interpreting the said phraseology the Supreme Court in the case of (S. Gurdip Singh v. Union of India)1, 1981 Cri.L.J. 2, has held that the service of grounds of detention is complete only when the grounds of detention are accompanied by the documents forming the basis thereof, for, then alone will the detenu be able to make an effective representation. In other words, if the documents which form the basis of the order of detention are not served on the detenu along with the grounds of detention, in the eye of law there will be no service of the grounds of detention and that circumstance would vitiate his detention and make it void ab initio. 6. Under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India also the same phraseology is used viz. when any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. While dealing with the aforesaid Article 22(5) the Supreme Court in the case of (Prakash Chandra v. Commissioner and Secy., Govt. of Kerala)2, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 687, has held that the "grounds" under Article 22(5) of the Constitution do not mean mere factual inferences plus factual material which led to such factual inferences but mean factual inferences. The concept of "grounds" used in the context of detention in Article 22(5) of the Constitution and in sub-section (3) of section 3 of COFEPOSA, therefore, has to receive an interpretation which will keep it meaningfully in tune with a contemporary notion. While the expression "grounds" for that matter includes not only conclusions of fact but also all the "basic facts" on which those conclusions were founded, they are different from subsidiary facts or further particulars or the basic facts. While the expression "grounds" for that matter includes not only conclusions of fact but also all the "basic facts" on which those conclusions were founded, they are different from subsidiary facts or further particulars or the basic facts. It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court that the word "grounds" used in the context of detention order includes not only the grounds of detention but also includes the documents or other material on the basis of which the order or detention is based. Therefore, in our opinion, from the record of the present case it becomes clear that respondent No. 2 while communicating the order of detention dated November 5, 1992, failed to send the documents on the basis of which the grounds of detention were formulated and, therefore, in the eyes of law respondent No. 2 has failed to follow the mandate under section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980. 7. Mr. Tripathi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-detenu, has also referred to two unreported decisions of the Division Bench of this High Court. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 420 of 1991 decided by M.L. Pendse and A.D. Mane, JJ., and also in Criminal Writ Petition No. 912 of 1992 decided by S.W. Puranik and E.D.D.S. Da'Silva, JJ., the State has failed to send the translations of Marathi documents along with the grounds of detention and since there was no material to show that the authority deciding under section 14 of the National Security Act, 1980, was in a position to go through the said documents in vernacular the courts held "if the said material, some of which is entirely in Marathi was forwarded to respondent No. 3 then respondent No. 3 could not at all have applied its mind thereto unless the said report and material in Marathi language was considered by a person who is fully conversant with the Marathi language". In the aforesaid two cases the order of detention passed under the National Security Act, 1980, was in fact accompanied by the documents, still, since the State Government had failed to send the translations of the documents which were in Marathi, this Court came to the conclusion that the Central Government was not able to apply its mind and, therefore, the authorities were not in a position to exercise the power of revocation under section 14 of the National Security Act, 1980. In the present case, from the record it appears that respondent No. 2 has failed to send the documents on the basis of which the grounds of detention were formulated to respondent No. 3. In view of this, in our opinion, respondent No. 2 has failed to comply with the provisions of section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980, and that renders the impugned order dated November 5, 1992 invalid. 8. Mr. Page, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, has relied upon a reported decision in the case of (Abdul Rahiman v. D.S. Soman)3, 1986(1) Bom.C.R. 319 . Relying on the ratio as laid down in the said judgment Mr. Page contended that in fact it is not incumbent upon the State Government to send the copies of the documents on the basis of which the grounds of detention were formulated. We have anxiously gone through the said judgment cited by Mr. Page. Paragraph 17 of this judgment is only relevant portion of the judgment from the point of view of interpretation of section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980, and the same reads as under: "The scheme of the Act permits the detenu a number of opportunities when the order of detention can be revoked or rescinded. Under section 3 of the Act it is obligatory upon the State Government to report the fact of detention to the Central Government within 7 days together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in the opinion of the State Government, have a bearing on the necessity for the order. This provision read with section 14 which empowers the Central Government to revoke detention order provides a chance to the detenu to obtain revocation. This provision read with section 14 which empowers the Central Government to revoke detention order provides a chance to the detenu to obtain revocation. The normative structure of the Act provides many checks and counter-checks so that the provisions are not misused for harassment of innocent persons. It is urged at the bar that the State Government did not send all the documents, copies of which have been supplied to him, to the Central Government and hence, has not complied with the mandatory provisions of section 3(5) of the Act. The documents run to about 91 pages and contained statements of witnesses, copies of F.I.R. panchanamas and copies of Police Station C.Rs. The Desk Officer of the Home Department of the State Government has averred that the State Government has forwarded a report under section 3(5) of the Act along with the detention order, committal order, grounds of detention and "other relevant material in respect of the detenu". The Desk Officer of the Ministry of Home Affairs in his counter-affidavit on behalf of the Union of India, states that a report "as envisaged under section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980", about the detention of Abdul Karim was made by Government of Maharashtra to the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs, vide their letter dated 31-7-1985 which was received by the Central Government on 2-8-1985. The Desk Officer further avers that Mr. M.K. Kaul, a Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, considered the said report and took a decision on 7-8-1985. In the affidavit of Dr. Pachori, a Director in the Ministry of Home Affairs, it has been said that the Central Government received a letter dated 26-7-1985 along with its accompaniments, detention order, committal order and grounds of detention and order regarding approval of Government of detention order. The requirement of section 3(5) is that the grounds and other particulars having a bearing on the necessity for the orders should be sent to the Central Government and we find from the affidavit of Dr. Pachori that there was substantial compliance of that section." In the aforesaid case it appears that it was argued on behalf of the petitioner-detenu that the State Government did not send all the documents and copies which were supplied to the petitioner to the Central Government under section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980. Pachori that there was substantial compliance of that section." In the aforesaid case it appears that it was argued on behalf of the petitioner-detenu that the State Government did not send all the documents and copies which were supplied to the petitioner to the Central Government under section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980. It is pertinent to note that in the said case the argument was not that the State Government failed to send the documents along with the order of detention to the Central Government as has happened in the present case. The Division Bench in the said case after going through the facts and circumstances of the case upheld the argument of the State Government that in fact they had sent all the relevant documents in respect of the detenu on the basis of which the grounds of detention were formulated in the order of detention. In view of the aforesaid factual aspect of the case the Division Bench has observed that the "State Government has specifically complied with the requirements of section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980". Therefore, according to our opinion there is nothing in this authority which supports the arguments as advanced by Mr. Page, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, that it is not necessary to send all the documents on the basis of which the grounds of detention were formulated under section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980. 9. In view of the above discussion, according to our opinion, the impugned order of detention dated November 5, 1992, passed by respondent No. 1 under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, is illegal and invalid, as the same was issued without complying with the provisions of section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980. This criminal writ petition, therefore, stands allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (b). The petitioner-detenu is directed to be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other criminal proceedings. Writ petition allowed. -----