A. N. GUPTA, J. The petitioner has challenged his order of detention, dated 20-4-1997 passed by District Magistrate, Mau under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980. 2. The detention order is based on several grounds; first ground is that on 9-5-1990 at about 7. 00 p. m. petitioner beat Sravan Kumar aged about 15 years son of Smt. Sripati Devi in Mohalla Ghora Dalai of Mau Town with kicks and fists. He also tried to strangulate him. However, on an alarm raised by Sravan Kumar, his elder brother and other witnesses reached there and relieved Sravan Kumar from the clutches of the petitioner and ran away after giving him threats. Smt. Sripati Devi got registered an F. I. R. being case crime No. 334/90 under Section 323/504/506, I. P. C. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and the case is pending in the Court in which the petitioner is on bail. 3. The second ground mentioned in the detention order is that on 26-11-1991 at about 10. 00 a. m. petitioner threatened Hari Charan Yadav with dire consequen ces in Mohalla Mirza Hadipura Chowkof Mau town regarding which crime No. 813/91 under Section 504/506, I. P. C. was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and the case is pend ing in the Court in which petitioner is on bail. 4. According to third ground, on 21-3-1997 at about 2. 50 p. m. Imam Ali, Sta tion Officer of Dakshin Tola lodged a report at the police station that when he along with other police personnel was on patrol duty at the time of Holi festival and was present in Mirza Hadipura, at about 10. 00 a. m. the people belonging to Hindu community were playing Holi and sprin kling colours. At that time about 50-60 persons belonging to Muslim community started throwing stones at them in which one Inspector of Police and some persons belonging to Hindu community were in jured. By the time, the Station Officer could do something, the Senior Officers also reached there and about 500-600 per sons collected there and started throwing stones again on the people belonging to Hindu Community. This could be stopped after great efforts. It was also learnt that the people belonging to Muslim com munity were beating persons of Hindu community when later were escaping towards Aurangabad. On the arrival of force it could be stopped. This could be stopped after great efforts. It was also learnt that the people belonging to Muslim com munity were beating persons of Hindu community when later were escaping towards Aurangabad. On the arrival of force it could be stopped. It was again learnt that some people of mohalla Dakshin Tola belonging to Muslim community were throwing stones on the persons belonging to Hindu community. The police force reached there and chased them away. Due to stone throwing an electric pole fell down and other Govern ment properties were destroyed. In this connection, case crime No. 140/97 under Sections 147/336/153-A (2)/427, I. P. C. was registered which is under investigation during which the name of the petitioner had come to light and petitioner is on bail in this case. 5. In the forth ground, it was men tioned that on 24-3-1997 at about 10. 00 a. m. when Gyan Shyam Das Gupta and other persons of Hindu Community reached mohalla Mirza Hadipura Mosque in a Holi procession, at that lime near Mirza Hadipura Mosque, the petitioner and several other persons belonging to Muslim community were present therein pre-planned manner, armed with lathis and stones. On exhoration of the petitioner and other persons some people belonging to Muslim community started throwing stones at the Hindu Procession due to which procession was seriously dis turbed and Ghanshyam Das Gupta and several others belonging to Hindu com munity were injured. Injured Ghanshyam Das Gupta was taken by Santosh and Sravan at his house and when Sravan and Santush were coming back, several per sons belonging to Muslim community armed with Daggers, Knives and dandas surrounded Santosh and attacked him due to which he was seriously injured. On the report of Ghanshyam Das Gupta case crime No. 140-E/97 under Sections 147/148/149/323/324/504/153-A, I. P. C. was registered. Petitioner was arrested in the said offence and has been released on bail. 6. In the fifth last ground, it has been mentioned that on 24-3-1997 at about 11. 00 a. m. when Kedar Washerman was pressing cloth in his house situated in mohalla Mirza Hadipura, the petitioner along with 3-4 friends reached there, armed with Bricks, Stones, Lathis and Dandas and started chasing Kedar who tried to run for safety. The petitioner and his friends destroyed his hut, took away bamboos etc. 00 a. m. when Kedar Washerman was pressing cloth in his house situated in mohalla Mirza Hadipura, the petitioner along with 3-4 friends reached there, armed with Bricks, Stones, Lathis and Dandas and started chasing Kedar who tried to run for safety. The petitioner and his friends destroyed his hut, took away bamboos etc. of the hut and also took away the cloths of the customers regarding which Kedar lodged in F. I. R. of case crime No. 140-A/97 under Section 395, I. P. C and Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC and ST Act which is under investigation. The petitioner is in jail in connection with the said offences and his bail application is pending for dis posal before the Sessions Judge, Mau and in all likelihood petitioner was likely to be granted bail. 7. It is not disputed that the petitioner handed over 9 copies of his rep resentation dated 6-5-1997 to the Superin tendent, District Jail, Azamgarh where the petitioner was lodged in pursuance of the detention order which was forwarded by the Superintendent, District Jail, Azam garh on the same day and was received in the Officer of the District Magistrate on the same day. The District Magistrate called for comments from the Superinten dent of Police, Mau which were received on 8-5-1997 and on the same day, the Dis trict Magistrate sent the representation of the petitioner to the State Government with his comment. The State Government rejected the same vide its order dated 15-5-1997 which was communicated to the petitioner on 16-5-1997. 8. The said representation of the petitioner was addressed to "home Secretary". In the representation, it was not mentioned clearly whether it was meant for Home Secretary of the State Government or for the Home Secretary of Union of India or for both. A counter-af fidavit has been filed on behalf of the Union of India by the Under Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs in which it has been mentioned that the representation of the petitioner was not received by the Central Government. 9. Although, in the writ petition several grounds have been raised to assail the detention order but the learned Coun sel for the petitioner confined his argu ments to only one ground. 9. Although, in the writ petition several grounds have been raised to assail the detention order but the learned Coun sel for the petitioner confined his argu ments to only one ground. He contended that although the petitioner had not men tioned in the representation as to whether it was meant for Home Secretary of the State Government or for the Home Secretary of the Central Government or for both but since he had given 9 copies of his representation, the Superintendent of Jail as well as the State Government were bound to send a copy of it to the Central Government for disposal because under Section 14 of the National Security Act, 1980, the Central Government has a power to revoke the detention order in question. In the case of Jai Prakash v. District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, U. P and others, 1993 SCC (Cr.) 121, Honble the Supreme Court has held that when the detenu gave 9 copies of his representation addressing it only to "home Secretary" without specifying State or Central Government, it was the duty of the Super intendent of Jail to send a copy of it to the Central Government for disposal and failure to send the same to the Central Government vitiates the order of deten tion. In the above case of Jai Prakash detenu had given 9 copies of the repre sentation to the Superintendent of Jail who retained one copy in his office, sent one copy to the Advisory Board and remaining copies to the State Govern ment and no copy was sent to the Central Government. In these circumstances, it was held that if sufficient number of copies of the representation are given without specifying whether they are meant for the Central Government or the Slate Govern ment, the Superintendent of Jail was bound to send a copy of the representation to the Central Government also and failure to do so rendered the detention order as illegal. Since in this case, the petitioner had given 9 copies of his repre sentation to the Superintendent of Jail who did not send a copy of it 10 the Central Government and the State Government also did not send a copy of it to Central Government, the petitioner was deprived of his valuable right of his representation being considered by the Central Govern ment. It renders the order of detention invalid. 10. It renders the order of detention invalid. 10. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed. The detention order in ques tion passed against the petitioner under the National Security Act is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in some other cases. Petition allowed. .