JUDGMENT 1. - By this habeas corpus petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 10.8.1994 and prayed that detention order dated 10.8.94 (Ann. 2) be quashed and Government be directed to release the detenu immediately. 2. The petitioner is a resident of Nagla Kumha, District Bharatpur. He has been detained in District Jail, Bharatpur under the provisions of National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NSA'). This petition is filed through the father of detenu Shri Deewan Singh. In the petition, it is alleged that petitioner is a student of IInd year Civil Engineering in Government Polytechnic College, Bharatpur and he is facing criminal trial in some cases registered against him. All these cases are involving petty offences except one or two. Therefore, in no way, his cases are connected with disturbance of 'public orders. 3. Non-petitioner No. 4 Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur has submitted a report to District Magistrate, Bharatpur non-petitioner No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'detaining authority') to detain the petitioner under the NSA. Along with the report, copies of the FIRs, charge- sheets were submitted before the detaining authority. On 10th Aug., 1994, the detaining authority, after considering the material submitted to him passed the detention order and directed to detain the petitioner under sub-sec. (2) of Section 3 of the NSA. The grounds of detention were served on the petitioner on 11th Aug., 1994. 4. The State Government non-petitioner No. 1 has approved the detention order Annexure-2 under sub-sec. (4) of Section 3 of the NSA vide its order dated 12th Aug., 1994 and communicated this order to the petitioner detenu in jail. The petitioner through his father Deewan Singh submitted a representation by registered post to His Excellency the President of India on 6th Sept., 94 against his illegal detention. The representation has been received in the Secretariat of His Excellency the President of India but no reply has been received by the petitioner detenu nor he has been released. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.K. Gupta has submitted that detaining authority has failed to apply its mind in accordance with law. There is nothing on record to show that the activities of the petitioner are in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He further submitted that detaining authority non-petitioner No. 3 has failed to supply all material available on record. A.K. Gupta has submitted that detaining authority has failed to apply its mind in accordance with law. There is nothing on record to show that the activities of the petitioner are in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He further submitted that detaining authority non-petitioner No. 3 has failed to supply all material available on record. Therefore, the petitioner could not make effective representation. Even the entire material was not made available to detaining authority, therefore, the detention order has been passed without application of mind and objective satisfaction. The Central Government was not informed within 7 days as required by the provisions under sub-sec. (5) of Section 3 of the NSA. Lastly, he submitted that the detaining authority has violated the provisions of Section 8 of the NSA. 6. In reply, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate Mr. Yadav has submitted that entire material was sent to the detaining authority along with the report including the statement of witnesses recorded during investigation. Therefore, it cannot be said that detention order was passed without considering the material on record. He also pointed out that grounds of detention were served on the date of detention itself i.e. 10.8.94 and not on 11.8.94. He also pointed out that representation sent by Shri Deewan Singh received in the Central Secretariat on 9.9.94 and a copy of that receipt has been received in the office of detaining authority on 29.9.94. He further submitted that the criminal actions of the petitioner detenu had disturbed the public order of Bharatpur, therefore, it has become necessary to detain him under the NSA. It has also been submitted that all the documents including the statements recorded during investigation, in pending cases, have been supplied. Mr. Yadav further submitted that due to fear in common public, witnesses do not come forward to give evidence against the detenu. 7. Whether on the basis of following cases, can it be said that the activities of the detenu has disturbed the public order : (i) In FIR No. 257/90 registered under sections 147 & 149 IPC and Section 3 of P.D.P. Act. In that incident dated 22.8.90, he damaged the public property. (ii) In FIR No. 412/92 registered under sections 3, 4 & 5 of Explosive Act. In that incident on 9.4.92, he threw some country made bombs nears Saras Hotel, Bharatpur. In that incident dated 22.8.90, he damaged the public property. (ii) In FIR No. 412/92 registered under sections 3, 4 & 5 of Explosive Act. In that incident on 9.4.92, he threw some country made bombs nears Saras Hotel, Bharatpur. (iii) In FIR No. 195/92 registered under sections 147,148,149, 307, 452 and 379 IPC. In that incident dated 15.12.92, detenu along with his other co-accused had entered into the shop of the complainant and had given beating. The beating was given in open market. (iv) In FIR No. 1119/92 registered under sections 147, 323, 379 & 447 IPC. In that incident on 4.10.92, detenu along with his companions gave beating to Prem Kumar and snatched Rs. 2,400/-, a golden chain and a golden ring from him, but in that incident, he has been acquitted. (v) In FIR No. 1402/92 registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 & 323 IPC. In that incident on 19.12.92, detenue has attacked along with his companions, Vijay Pal Singh son of Maharaj Singh. The trial is pending. (vi) In FIR No. 7/93 registered under sections 147,452 & 379 IPC. In that incident dated 6.1.93, detenue along with his companions entered in the house of Gulab Singh, gave beating and snatched Rs. 5,000/- and also taken away motor cycle No. 3097. The case is still pending. (vin) In FIR No. 293/93 registered under sections 147,148 & 452 IPC. In that incident on 4.4.93, detenue along with his friends entered in the house of Yogendra Singh and put a revolver on his chest. The case is still pending. (ix) In FIR No. 296/93 registered under sections 307 IPC. In that incident on 5.4.93, while Anurudh Singh was sitting in the oil mill of Shambhu, the detenu has inflicted knife blow to Anurudh Singh. The case is still pending. (x) In FIR No. 401/93 registered under sections 364, 323 & 511 IPC. In that incident on 1.5.93, detenu gave beating in the court premises to one Mohan Lal Saini. In that case, the detenu has been acquitted along with his companions. (xi) In FIR No. 344/93 registered under section 302 IPC. In that incident on 17.5.93, detenu had fired along with his companions at Shiv Dayal and killed him. The trial is still pending. 8. In that case, the detenu has been acquitted along with his companions. (xi) In FIR No. 344/93 registered under section 302 IPC. In that incident on 17.5.93, detenu had fired along with his companions at Shiv Dayal and killed him. The trial is still pending. 8. The detaining authority has referred as many as 11 cases in which the petitioner was involved and they are committed within the period from 1990 to May, 1993. The question does arise whether all these cases in which the petitioner was involved, the activities of the detenue disturb the public order. It is-true that out of 11 cases, in some cases the detenu has been acquitted but the continuous involvement of the detenu in criminal activities/cases, that certainly affects the public order. Even in grounds of appeal, it has been said that people of the locality are so afraid from the detenu, they avoid to make complaint against him and nobody likes to come forward to give the statement in court against him. That fear and panic in the mind of public in general is enough to hold that the activities of the detenu have disturbed the public order. But still question remains that in the above referred cases, last incident took place on 17.5.93 and the impugned detention order has been passed on 10.8.94. When no criminal activity of the detenu has been found from May, 1993 to Aug, 1994, can his detention be justified in Aug., 1994 and whether the detention order has been passed after such long delay can be upheld. 9. The issue regarding delay in passing the order has been considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Anand Prakash v. State of U.P. and others (1990)1 SCC 291 , and in para 12 of the judgment, it has been observed as under : "The theft of the wire was on February 14, 1989 and the FIR was registered on February 15, 1989. On that day itself as seen from the record Jagdish, Santosh and Munshi Sharma were shown as accused on the basis of some information. The house of Jagdish has raided on March 3, 1989 and on the same day the factory of the detenu was raided and 20 kg. of melted wire was recovered from Munshi Sharma but no action was taken till May 2, 1989 against the detenu. The house of Jagdish has raided on March 3, 1989 and on the same day the factory of the detenu was raided and 20 kg. of melted wire was recovered from Munshi Sharma but no action was taken till May 2, 1989 against the detenu. On being arrested on May 2, 1989 the detenu moved a bail application and the detention order itself was made on May 3, 1989. Though bail was granted, in view of the detention order he could not be released from jail. In spite of the fact that the recovery statement was made as early as on March 3,1989 no action was taken till May 3, 1989. Nothing more is stated in the detention order. The delay has also not been satisfactorily explained in the counter statement of the respondents. The ground instance, therefore, could not be a proximate cause for a sudden decision to take action under the National Security Act and this also vitiates the order." In Issac Babu v. Union of India & another (1990) 4 SCC 135 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed in para 2 of the judgment as under: "We do not think this is a satisfactory explanation. It was not incumbent on the authorities to wait till the issue of the show cause notice. The need to issue a show cause notice within 6 months has nothing to do with the processing of the detention papers. In our view, therefore, this explanation is far from satisfactory." 10. The last incident took place as per grounds of appeal in May, 1993 and detention order has been passed on 10.8.94. When there was no material before the detaining authority regarding the conduct and activities of detenu from May, 1993 to Aug., 1994, such subjective satisfaction certainly vitiates the detention order is absence of material regarding activities of detenu from May, 1993 to Aug., 1994. Though in reply, in para (zi), it has been said that during the period of interim bail in May, 1994, the detenu was committed three offences and to that effect cases were registered, FIR Nos. 239/94, 242/94 and 130/94, but they were not placed before the detaining authority as fairly admitted by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. Though in reply, in para (zi), it has been said that during the period of interim bail in May, 1994, the detenu was committed three offences and to that effect cases were registered, FIR Nos. 239/94, 242/94 and 130/94, but they were not placed before the detaining authority as fairly admitted by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. When the fact regarding offences committed in May, 1994 were not placed before the detaining authority, therefore, they cannot be added, for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority at this stage. 11. Mr. Gupta next argued that detaining authority has not applied his mind. In Ayya alias Ayub v. State of U.E & another ( AIR 1989 SC 364 ) , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed as under: "What weight the contents and assertions in the telegram should carry is an altogether a different matter. It is not disputed that the telegram was not placed before and considered by the detaining authority. There would be vitiation of the detention on grounds of non-application of mind if a piece of evidence, which was relevant though not binding, had not been considered at all. If a piece of evidence which might reasonably have affected the decision whether or not to pass an order of detention is excluded from consideration, there would be failure of application of mind which, in turn, vitiates the detention. The detaining-authority might very well have come to the same conclusion after considering this material, but in the facts of the case the omission to consider the material assumes materiality." 12. Mr. Yadav has fairly admitted that the offences committed in May, 1994 have not been placed before the detaining authority and the order was passed in Aug., 1994. Even if we take that those cases would be before the detaining authority, then they would go against the detenu and not in favour of the detenu. Even in reply filed by the respondents, it has been stated that all the relevant documents including the statements recorded during investigation Under section 161 Cr.P.C. were placed before the detaining authority. No positive evidence has been placed on record that any document which goes in favour of the detenu has not been considered or placed before the detaining authority before his subjective satisfaction. No positive evidence has been placed on record that any document which goes in favour of the detenu has not been considered or placed before the detaining authority before his subjective satisfaction. In absence of positive evidence, we cannot say that all the relevant documents were not placed before the detaining authority and he failed to apply his mind. In view this matter, we are of the view that the detaining authority has passed the detention order after subjective satisfaction and considering the material placed before him. 13. Mr. Gupta next argued that the petitioner's father made representation on 10.8.94 and that has been decided on 2.12.94. This unexplained delay in considering the representation also vitiates the detention. 14. Their Lordships of the Apex Court have considered the delay aspect in such cases in the case of Rajindra v. Commissioner of Police, Nagpur Division & others (1994 Suppl. (2) SCC 716) and observed as under: "There is no question of a specific allegation to be made in the petition except pointing out by placing facts that there has been a delay which ex facie calls for an explanation and that obligation has to be discharged by filing a proper counter and explaining the delay. The Courts have not been unduly strict in insisting that each day's delay must be explained but it is obligatory on the part of the Government to show by filing a counter- affidavit that it had acted promptly in dealing with the representation. What is essential is that the Court must be satisfied that the officers dealing with the representation were not indifferent to the urgency of the situation on the detenu being in jail. We are afraid that in the instant case by failing to file a counter-affidavit and by failing to explaining the ex facie delay the Central Government failed in its duty and, therefore, we see no alternative but to uphold the contention and quash the detention order." In Piara Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1987 SC 2377 ) , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed as under: "In the present case it must be held that the delay in dealing with the representation of the petitioner, which was admittedly received by the Government on 14th January, 1987 and rejected as late as on 26th Feb., 1987, must be considered as inordinate delay in dealing with the representation. No explanation is given in the counter-affidavit as to why the representation could not have been dealt with and disposed of earlier, and hence it must be held that the order of detention of the petitioner is vitiated by reason of delay in dealing with his representation." 15. The detention order was passed on 10.8.94 and petitioner has made representation through his father. The copy of the representation was sent to His Excellency the President of India on 6th Sept., 1994. That has been received on 9th Sept., 1994 but neither the detenu has received the reply of that representation nor that representation has been decided so far. Therefore, this inordinate delay vitiates the detention order. Mr. Yadav has submitted that one representation has been received by the State Government on 27.10.94. The matter was put-up before Principal Secretary, Home Department on 29.10.94 and that has been rejected and consequential order was passed on 1.11.94. But for the representation made to the Central Government, Mr. Yadav pleaded ignorance: Mr. Yadav has filed an additional affidavit along with the letter of Deputy Secretary (Home) that representation of Pushpendra Singh has been rejected on 2nd Dec., 1994. 16. Mr. Sudhir Gupta appeared for Union of India and submitted that though the case has been assigned to him, but, he has no information. The question does arise when the representation of the petitioner was received in the Secretariat of His Excellency the President of India on 9th Sept., 1994 and that has been rejected on 2nd Dec., 1994. This shows that in deciding the representation, the Central Government has taken 83 days. This unexplained delay in disposing the representation renders the detention illegal. 17. Lastly, Mr. Gupta has submitted that all material which was placed before the detaining authority has not been supplied to the detenu. In the cases where charge- sheet has been filed, only the copy of FIR has been supplied and the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and charge- sheets have not been supplied to detenu. In case of detention, when some material has been considered and placed before the detaining authority which affects the mind of the detaining authority and if part of the material or any document which has been considered by the detaining authority, if not supplied to the detenu, whether it affects the right of effective representation of the detenu. 18. In case of detention, when some material has been considered and placed before the detaining authority which affects the mind of the detaining authority and if part of the material or any document which has been considered by the detaining authority, if not supplied to the detenu, whether it affects the right of effective representation of the detenu. 18. In State of U.P. v. Kamal Kishore Saini [ (1988) 1 SCC 287 ] , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed as under: "We have already upheld the finding of the High Court that the order of detention is illegal and bad for non-supply of vital documents to the detenu to enable them to make an effective representation against the grounds of detention and as such their right to make an effective representation as contemplated under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been infringed rendering the impugned order as illegal and bad." 19. Even assuming that in cases where the charge-sheet has been filed, the copies of statements recorded during investigation Under section 161 Cr.P.C. and other material were supplied to the detenu in the cases pending in the court but when the detenu is behind the bars, those documents which were supplied to him when charge-sheet was filed may not readily available, in such cases, non-supply of copies of statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. to a detenu affects to some extent his right of effective representation. 20. Suffice it to say that though the activities of detenu till May, 1993 are enough to hold that those activities had disturbed the public order, but we cannot ignore the fact that last incident was in May, 1993 while the order of detention has been passed in Aug., 1994 and no incident from May, 1993 to Aug., 1994 has been considered by the detaining authority while passing the detention order. This unexplained delay in passing the detention order vitiates the detention order and also the inadequate delay in deciding the representation made by the father of detenu render the detention invalid. In view of this matter, we quash the detention order dated 10.8.94 (Ann. 2) and direct the detaining authority to release the detenu forthwith if not required in any other case.The petition is allowed as indicated above. *******