JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, A.C.J. 1. In this writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner Md. Abdul Zahur who is brother of the detenu Tito alias Sayed Usman Alli has prayed for quashing the order passed by the Dist. Magistrate, Kendrapara on 15-12-1994 (Annexure-1) directing detention of the detenu u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act., 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the order passed by the State Govt. on 7-2-1995 (Annexure-4)confirming the detention order u/s 12(1) of the Act. The ground of detention dated 19-12-1994 (Annexure-2) shows that for the reasons and on the grounds stated therein the Dist. Magistrate was satisfied that, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the detenu should be detained under the Act. The main grounds of challenge against the detention order are that the order has been passed by the District Magistrate without due application of mind, inasmuch as, some of the cases mentioned in the grounds of detention had ended in acquittal of the detenu long before the detention order was passed; that many of the documents enclosed to the grounds of detention are in English language which the detenu can neither read nor write and therefore he has been denied the opportunity of making an effective representation; that the detention order is vitiated due to non-compliance with the provisions in Section 3(5) and Section 14 of the Act as the State Govt. did not intimate the Central Govt. about the detention orders within the statutory period and the Central Govt. did not consider whether the detention order should be revoked u/s 14 and that even accepting the allegations made against the detenu to be true the case is one of law and order and not of public order. The State of Orissa represented by the Secretary. Department of Home Affairs, the Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi, the District Magistrate, Kendrapara and the Superintendent, Circle Jail, Choudwar are cited as opposite parties in the writ application. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Under-Secretary to Govt. of Orissa, Home Department. The other opposite parties including the detaining authority, District Magistrate, Kendrapara did not file any counter affidavit. When the arguments were about to be closed the learned Addl. Govt. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Under-Secretary to Govt. of Orissa, Home Department. The other opposite parties including the detaining authority, District Magistrate, Kendrapara did not file any counter affidavit. When the arguments were about to be closed the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate filed an affidavit by the Officer-in-charge of the Judicial Section of Kendrapara without any-supporting document. In the counter affidavits the allegations made and the contentions raised in the writ petition are denied in a general manner. It is asserted that on proper consideration of the relevant materials the District Magistrate was satisfied that the detention of the detenu is obsolutely necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to public order, as such the detention order was legal and valid. 3. Shri R.N. Mohanty appearing for the petitioner reiterated the grounds of challenge against the impugned detention order noted above. He submitted that five of the cases mentioned in the grounds of detention i.e., Kendrapara P.S. Case No. 143 dated 21-5-1993, Kendrapara P.S. Case No. 294 dated 1-9-1992, Kendrapara P.S. Case No. 295 dated 26-8-1992, Kendrapara P.S. Case No. 239 dated 2-8-1992 and Kendrapara P.S Case No. 235 dated 31-7-1992, had been disposed of much before the detention order was passed and the detenu had been acquitted in all these cases. ? According to Shri Mohanty, consideration of the detenu is alleged involvement in these cases was wholly irrelevant. Further, there is no material to show that the District Magistrate was aware of the fact of acquittal in the cases when he passed the order-of detention. Therefore the detention order is vitiated on-that score. He placed strong reliance on the decisions of the Supreme. Court reported in Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal Vs. Police Commissioner and Another (19S9) 4 SCC 124 (Ramesh v. State of Gujarat and Ors.) and of this Court reported in (1994) 7 OCR 899 (Sanju Dora v. State of Orissa and Ors.). 4. The learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand submitted that from the grounds of detention it is clear that the District Magistrate was aware of the position that only some of the criminal cases mentioned in the order were subjudice while the remaining cases had been disposed of. 4. The learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand submitted that from the grounds of detention it is clear that the District Magistrate was aware of the position that only some of the criminal cases mentioned in the order were subjudice while the remaining cases had been disposed of. We are not inclined to accept this contention for the reason that the District Magistrate has not personally filed any affidavit stating whether he was aware of the acquittal of the detenu in the case or not. In the absence of his affidavit and in the absence of any other contemporaneous materials to show that he had knowledge of the relevant fact, the contention of Shri Mohanty that the District Magistrate was not aware of this fact while arriving at his subjective satisfaction is to be accepted. 5. The next question in this connection relates to the effect of the above finding on the validity of the detention order. The Supreme Court in Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal Vs. Police Commissioner and Another, ruled- "From the above decisions it emerges that the requisite subjective satisfaction the formation of which is a condition precedent to passing of a detention order will get vitiated if material or vital facts which would have bearing on the issue and weighed the satisfaction of the detaining authority one way or the other and influenced his mind are either withheld or suppressed by the sponsoring authority or ignored and not considered by the detaining authority before issuing the detention order........." In the said case two criminal cases in which the detenu had been acquitted were taken into consideration by the detaining authority to arrive at his subjective satisfaction ignoring the fact that the accused (detenu) had been acquitted in the cases. The same view was reiterated by the apex Court in (1989) 5 SCC 124 (supra) wherein It was observed : "As rightly submitted by Mr. Parakh, the withholding of the vital fact that the detenu has been acquitted in that criminal case, resulting in the non-application of the mind of the detaining authority to the said fact vitiates the impugned order as ruled in Dharamadas Camilla Agarwal v. Police Commissioner." 6. Parakh, the withholding of the vital fact that the detenu has been acquitted in that criminal case, resulting in the non-application of the mind of the detaining authority to the said fact vitiates the impugned order as ruled in Dharamadas Camilla Agarwal v. Police Commissioner." 6. Testing the present case in-- the light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned decided cases, the conclusion is inevitable that the detention order is vitiated due to non-consideration of the relevant fact that the detenu had been acquitted in some of the cases noticed in the grounds. The said order is also vitiated due to non-application of mind in arriving at the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority which is the pre-requisite to making the detention order. 7. Regarding the contention of Shri Mohanty that Oriya translation of the English documents were not supplied to the detenu/and therefore the detention order was vitiated, it is sufficient for us to state that on a combined reading of Article 22(5) of the Constitution and the provision of Section 8(1) of the Act and having regard to the case, law evolved through the decisions of the Supreme Court the position is well settled that all documents, statements and other materials incorporated on the grounds by reference and which have influenced the mind of the dataining authority in arriving at the requisite subjective satisfaction must be furnished to the detenu in a script or language which he understands. In this connection we may refer to the decision of the apex Court in the case of Ibrahim Ahmed Betti alias Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Aundar Ahmed Yagher alias Iqbal alias Gulam v. State of Gujarat arid Ors., reported in (1982) 8 SCC 440 and the decision of this Court in the case of Sanju Dora (supra). Though learned Addl. Govt. Advocate submitted that Oriya translation of the English documents were furnished to the detenu he did not support the submission by placing any supporting materials before us. We therefore, held that the detention order is also vitiated on this score. 8. Coming to the contention raised by Sri Mohanty that the detention order is vitiated due to non-compliance with the provisions of Section 3(5) and 14, reference may be made to paragraphs 7 and 14 of the writ petition in which it is averred inter alia, that neither the State Govt. 8. Coming to the contention raised by Sri Mohanty that the detention order is vitiated due to non-compliance with the provisions of Section 3(5) and 14, reference may be made to paragraphs 7 and 14 of the writ petition in which it is averred inter alia, that neither the State Govt. intimated the detention order to the Central Govt. nor the Central Govt. considered the question of revocation of the detention order u/s 14 of the Act. It may be stated here that in view of the averments made in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Govt. the factual position cannot be disputed that the State Govt. sent intimation of approval of the detention order to the-Central Govt. as provided in Section 3(5) of the Act. But the other submission of Sri Mohanty that the Central Govt. has failed to carry out the statutory mandate u/s 14 of the Act deserves consideration. As noted earlier, neither any counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Central Govt. nor is it stated before us that the Central Govt. considered the question whether the detention order is to be revoked u/s 14 of the Act. The fact of non-compliance with the provision of Section 14 of the Act was considered by this Court in the case of Siba Lenka v. State of Orissa and Ors., reported in 1990 (I) OLR 347 in which it was observed : "... Since the allegations made against the Central Government to the effect that the Central Government has failed to exercise its power u/s 14 of the Act as after the State Government reported the factum of approval to the Central Government u/s 3(5) the Central Government has not applied its mind to the facts and materials on record have not been controverted. Such inaction on the part of the Central Government vitiates the detention of the detenu. In a present case of the Gauhati High Court in Namai Chandra Barua v. The State of Assam and Ors. Such inaction on the part of the Central Government vitiates the detention of the detenu. In a present case of the Gauhati High Court in Namai Chandra Barua v. The State of Assam and Ors. 1995 (2) Crimes 275, the learned Judges considered the provisions of Section 3(5) read with Section 14(1) of National Security Act, and held that the Central Government was duty bound to consider the, report and the grounds of detention sent by the State Government but if the Central Government had not discharged its duties and obligations under the Act, then the detention would, become vitiated. The allegations made in the present case not having been controverted by the Central Government though the Central Government is represented by the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government, the allegation must be taken to have been admitted and, therefore, it must be held that the Central Government failed to perform the duties and obligations cast on it u/s 14 of the Act, and the decision of the Gauhati High Court, referred to (supra), will apply with full force. Therefore, the detention of the detenu is vitiated" The Apex Court in the case of Sabir Ahmed Vs. Union of India (UOI), held that since a representation made by the detenu to the Central Govt. u/s 11 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) has been ignored and left unattended for a period of about four months, the detention cannot be justified as being according to procedure prescribed by law. In the present case it is contended by Sri Mohanty that the detenu sent a representation to the Central Government which remained unattended and no order has been communicated to the detenu in the matter. On the foregoing discussions the inescapable conclusion is that the detention order passed against the detenu is vitiated due to non-compliance of Section 14 of the Act. 9. Since we have found that the detention order is not sustainable for the reasons and on the grounds noted above, we do not feel it necessary to go into the factual aspects of the case necessary for consideration of the contention of Sri Mohanty that even accepting the grounds of detention only a case of law and order is made out and not a case of public order. 10. 10. On the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs and for the reasons stated therein the detention order as per Annexure-1 and the order confirming it vide Annexure 4 are unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the said orders are quashed and set aside. It is ordered that the detenu be released forthwith if his detention is not required in any other case. The writ application is allowed. No cost. R.K. Dash, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Allowed