D. K. TRIVEDI, J. The petitioner who is in detention, has invoked the writ juris diction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned detention order dated 20-4-97 passed by the District Magistrate, Moradabad under Section 3 (2) of Nation al Security Act. 2. The order of detention was served on the detenu on 22-7-97 when the detenu was in jail in connection with case crime No. 52/97. 3. From the perusal of the detention order, it is evident that the District Magistrate, Moradabad was satisfied that the detention of the petitioner was neces sary with a view to prevent the petitioner/detenu from acting in any man ner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The impugned detention order of the petitioner illuminated for his involvement in two cases. The first ground relates to case crime No. 292/96, under Sections 148,302/149 and 147, IPC and the second ground relates to case crime No. 52/97 under Section 307, IPC. The case of the prosecution in respect of case crime No. 292/96 is against six persons including the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner was present at the time of the incident and on his instigation one Hem Raj Singh fired and killed Surendra Singh who was a student of Gramodai Inter Col lege Gangeshwari. It is not disputed that the petitioner is the Manager of Gramodai Inter College, Gangeshwari. It is alleged that Surender Singh was murdered on the instigation of the petitioner. A report was lodged at case crime No. 292/96. On the other hand, it is also not disputed that Hem Raj Singh who allegedly killed Surender Singh also tried to lodge a first information report before the police but no report was registered, then he moved an application before the C. J. M. under Sec tion 156 (3), Cr. P. C. The CJ. M. concerned passed an order directing the police to register and investigate the case and in compliance of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, a case under Section 292 (A)/96 was registered. It is also not disputed that Hem Raj Singh had also received several injuries and he was medi cally examined. P. C. The CJ. M. concerned passed an order directing the police to register and investigate the case and in compliance of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, a case under Section 292 (A)/96 was registered. It is also not disputed that Hem Raj Singh had also received several injuries and he was medi cally examined. It is also not disputed that the petitioner surrendered before the court in November 1996 and in this case all the accused except Hem Raj Singh were enlarged on bail. Initially, the petitioners bail application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 17-11-97 but finally the petitioner was enlarged on bail by the High Court on 20-1-97. Here, it may be pointed out that no action has been taken by the authority concerned unto April 1997 on the basis of this incident. It is further alleged that another incident al leged to have taken place on 12-4-96 at about 6 p. m. in the evening and a case at crime No. 52/97 was registered against the petitioner under Section 307, IPC. It is stated that seeing Jaspal Singh, the petitioner stated that "as you had or ganized a procession of the students against him for the murder of a student of Gangeshwari college, therefore, I will see you" and saying this, he fired at Jaspal Singh. Jaspal Singh did not receive any injury but it is alleged that due to this incident the public order was disturbed. The petitioner was in jail in respect of this incident and therefore, the impugned detention order was passed and served on the petitioner. 4. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the im pugned detention order is on the face of it, illegal and void because the relevant papers have not been placed before the detaining authority as well as before the State Govt. at the time of its approval. In support of his contention, he pointed out that in case crime No. 292/96 admittedly a cross version was registered and the petitioners as well as the co-accused per sons were also enlarged on bail. In these circumstances, the counter version as well as the bail application and orders passed on the said application were necessary and relevant for the detaining authority at the time of passing of the detention order. In these circumstances, the counter version as well as the bail application and orders passed on the said application were necessary and relevant for the detaining authority at the time of passing of the detention order. according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, as the relevant papers as men tioned above, have not been placed before the detaining authority therefore, the im pugned detention order as well as its ap proval by the State Govt. vitiates and is liable to be quashed. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that apart from this, Ground No. 1 for the above reasons fur ther goes and the same cannot be con sidered agar ?t the petitioner in view of the facts stated above. 6. So far as Ground No. 2 is con cerned, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the same relates to law and order problem and in no way the incident has affected the public order. In reply to the above mentioned argument, the learned Govt. Advocate contended that as the final report has been submitted therefore, the counter version is not relevant to place before the detaining authority and further even if Ground N o. 1 goes then also the detention order shall remain valid in view of the provisions of Section 5ra of the National Security Act. The learned Govt. Advocate further con tended that Ground No". 2 is sufficient to maintain the impugned order as the public order was affected by the said incident. 7. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties in our opinion the conten tion of the petitioners Counsel that the first ground goes in view of not placing the relevant papers before the detaining authority and the second ground also goes because the attack was on account of per sonal animosity and nothing else finds force. So far as the first ground is con cerned, the same is based in respect of case crime No. 292/96 and as pointed out above the counter report was also lodged by the orders of the C. J. M. and a case at Crime No. 292 (A)/96 was also registered against the complainants party in respect of this incident. In these circumstances, it is not disputed that there were two versions in respect of the incident. In these circumstances, it is not disputed that there were two versions in respect of the incident. One version finds mention in the FIR lodged in case crime No. 292/96 and the second version was disclosed in the report in case crime No. 292 (A)/96. It is not disputed that only one side version was placed before the detain ing authority. Before the detaining authority the version of the prosecution was only placed but no counter version was placed before the detaining authority. The reporting officer reported the matter for taking action under Section 3 of the Act on 16-4-97 but in spite of this counter version was not placed before the detaining authority and therefore, it cannot be said that the satisfaction of the detaining authority was based on relevant materials. It was the duty of the reporting officer to place all the relevant materials before the detaining authority in respect of the inci dent for decision. When there are two versions of the incident then in these cir cumstances, placing of only one version before the detaining authority, in our opinion, on the face of it affects its decision and it cannot be said that the satisfaction of the detaining authority was proper. It is not disputed that the detaining authority did not take into account the version of the detenu in respect of the incident. It is settled law that the rival version was cer tainly a vital circumstance to be considered by the detaining authority before any order was passed by the detaining authority. The fact that the rival version was not taken into account and was ignored is a cir cumstance which vitiates the order of detention. The fact that the final report has already been submitted by the police therefore, the papers were not relevant to the detaining authority, is no ground in not placing these papers before the detaining authority specially when there is nothing on the record to show as to whether the final report was accepted by the court or not? In any case it was the duty of the sponsoring authority to mention this fact that there a counter version but the police submitted a final report. 8. In any case it was the duty of the sponsoring authority to mention this fact that there a counter version but the police submitted a final report. 8. In our opinion, the satisfaction of the detaining-authority always affects with certainty if, only one version of the inci dent is placed and the second version of the incident is not placed before the detaining authority. 9. In view of the facts stated above that only one version has been placed before the detaining-authority in respect of case crime No. 292/96 and therefore, in our opinion the ground No. 1 vitiates the impugned detention order and the same cannot be relied upon. 10. As regards the second ground is converted, that the petitioner threatened Jaspal Singh because he used to raise slogans and organized a students proces sion against the petitioner in respect of the murder of a student of Gangeshwari -col lege. The allegations itself show that the incident was confined to Jaspal Singh only and it took -place due to personal animosity. According to the allegations, the petitioner threatened the complainant and fired shot but admittedly neither the complainant nor anybody else had received any injury. It is evident that as the incident occurred on account of personal animosity between the parties therefore, the impugned order of detention, in our opinion, relates to problem of law and order and not the public order. Similarly, if the petitioner alongwith his associate committed any murder or made any at tempt to commit murder at public place due to personal enmity, then, the same in our opinion also comes within the category of law and order problem and nor public order problem, because the same has no affect on local community and on public at large. 11. In view of the fact stated above, the impugned detention order is vitiated and therefore, the impugned detention order dated 20-4-97 passed by the District-Magistrate, Moradabad (at present Distt. Jyoti Ba Pulley Nagar) is hereby, quashed. 12. Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby allowed. A mandamus is issued to the opposite parties concerned to set free the petitioner forthwith unless wanted in any other case. Petition allowed. .