( 1 ) SPEAKING for the Bench. The petitioner is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order passed by the respondent more particularly by Resp. No. 2, dtd. 24-7-96, detaining his younger brother Shamim under National Security Act 1980 (hereinunder referred to as NASA for brief ). The detention order has been passed in Case No. 12/96/nsa on 24-7-96 and that has been confirmed on 29-8-96 by the State Government after approval of the Advisory Board. By the said order Shamim has been detained for a period of 12 months, commencing from 24-7-96. ( 2 ) FEW facts need to be stated for understanding the matter. It has been alleged by the respondents that on 13th and 14th July 96 the officers of police Thana, Maxi raided the residential house of detenu Shamim at village Jhokar and during that raid they found that detenue was slaughtering sheeps and cows. The raiding party found slaughtered portion of the cows with flesh, the skins of 76 killed cows, 16 alive cows. The respondents alleged that those 16 cows which were found alive were for slaughtering which used to be in the night. The respondents felt that on account of such activities of detenu the members of public belonging to Hindu religion were seriously annoyed and there was tension prevalent in the locality which was likely to cause communal outbreak dangering the maintenance of public peace and order. The respondents alleged that the members of public form that locality were afraid to detenu and, therefore, none was daring to report complaint against detenu in the police station. Thus, on this back ground the respondents felt the necessity of detaining the detenu and, therefore, relying on representation of S. P. Shajapur dtd. 21-7-96, the action of detention was taken. ( 3 ) SO far as present petition is concerned Shri Z. A. Khan has been heard for the detenu and Shri G. Desai, G. A. has been heard for the respondents - State. 21-7-96, the action of detention was taken. ( 3 ) SO far as present petition is concerned Shri Z. A. Khan has been heard for the detenu and Shri G. Desai, G. A. has been heard for the respondents - State. ( 4 ) SHRI Z. A. Khan, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on following judgments : (i) 1990 (39) JLJ 82 : (1990 Cri LJ 1738) Ajay v. State of M. P. (ii) 1991 Cri LJ 2477 Girdhar Nagar v. State of M. P. (iii) 1995 Cr LJ 2657 Surya Prakash Sharma v. State of M. P. ( 5 ) THE main contention of Shri Z. A. Khan is that the 'satisfaction' of the detaining authority could not be treated to be legal because when the order was served on the detenu, he was in jail. He further argued that there was no sufficient grounds for coming to the conclusion that there was danger to public peace and order by presence of the petitioner in the society. Shri Desai, G. A. for the respondents placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Bimla Rani v. Union of India reported (1989) 4 SCC 509 . ( 6 ) IN the matter of Ajay v. State of M. P. (supra) the Full Bench of this High Court has held that (at page 1740) (of Cri LJ) -"law, according to us, appears to be well settled that when Detaining Authority's subjective satisfaction is challenged on the ground of his non-awareness of the detenu being held in confinement on the date of detention order, the order is vitiated on the ground alone as jurisdictional competence of the authority to pass the order is vitiated. " ( 7 ) IT has been held by the division Bench of this Court in the matter of Girdhar Nagar v. State of M. P. (supra) that -"the detaining authority appears to have formed the subjective satisfaction in the backdrop of communal riots, which situation is non-existence. The detention order can not be sustained. " ( 7 ) IT has been held by the division Bench of this Court in the matter of Girdhar Nagar v. State of M. P. (supra) that -"the detaining authority appears to have formed the subjective satisfaction in the backdrop of communal riots, which situation is non-existence. The detention order can not be sustained. " ( 8 ) THE Supreme Court held in the matter of Surya Prakash Sharma v. State of U. P. (supra) :"where the detaining authority was though aware of the fact that the detenu was already in custody at the time of passing of detention order but there were no cogent material on the basis of which the detaining authority was satisfied that the detenu might indulge in serious offence causing threat in public order, if he released on bail, the order of detention would be liable to be quashed. " ( 9 ) IN the matter of Smt. Bimla Rani v. Union of India (supra) the Supreme Court held that -"when an incident was such that it created communal tension and the authorities were apprehensive of the breaking of a communal riot, such incident in itself may be sufficient and may afford justification for the satisfaction of the detaining authority for the detention of the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in such activity prejudicial to public order even though there are no antecedent acts of similar nature or past history of commission of crime by the detenu. " ( 10 ) IN the present matter, the record shows that the detention order was passed on 24-7-96 by the District Magistrate, Shajapur and detenu was detained on 25-7-96. The said order was approved on 31-7-96 by the State. ( 11 ) IT has been argued on behalf of petitioner by his counsel that when said detention order was served on detenu, he was already in jail for an offence which is punishable under provisions of Ss. 8/10 of the Act M. P. Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act 1959 and he pointed out the order of this Court by which detenu was released on bail in the matter of that crime. The documents produced on behalf of respondents show that the detention order was served on him on 25-7-96 vide Annx. R/1. 8/10 of the Act M. P. Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act 1959 and he pointed out the order of this Court by which detenu was released on bail in the matter of that crime. The documents produced on behalf of respondents show that the detention order was served on him on 25-7-96 vide Annx. R/1. It means that when detention order was served on the detenu he was already in detention in respect of a crime which has been alleged against him, punishable under provisions of Ss. 8/10 of M. P. Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act 1959. Not only that but he was in detention for that crime right from 14-7-96. ( 12 ) IN view of the observations of the Supreme court in the matter of Smt. Bimla Rani v. Union of India (supra) 'when an incident was such that it created communal tension and the authorities were apprehensive of the breaking of a communal riot, it is sufficient to enable the authorities to take appropriate action for detention of such person in view of the provisions of NASA. The authorities would be justified in taking appropriate steps towards detention of such persons for the purpose of preventing the breach of peace and for maintaining the order. However, it is necessary for the authorities to have 'satisfaction' legally that presence of such person in the society would by prejudicial to public order and for that it is utmost necessary for the authority to show that it had applied its mind at the time of perusing the material placed before it. It is true that the 'satisfaction' should be subjective but it should be a legal one and should not be lacking in any relevant important aspect. That subjective satisfaction should be eloquently expressed by the order which has been passed by the authority and the record connected with the matter. ( 13 ) IN the present matter the order of the authority (District Magistrate, Shajapur) does not show that he had taken into consideration that the detenu was in Shajapur district jail on 24-7-96 and was trying to get released on bail. It has not been mentioned in the said order or record connected with it that the Court had passed the order by which on paper detenu was released on bail in the matter of a crime which was registeredagainst him in view of the provisions of Ss. It has not been mentioned in the said order or record connected with it that the Court had passed the order by which on paper detenu was released on bail in the matter of a crime which was registeredagainst him in view of the provisions of Ss. 8/10 of M. P. Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1959. It has not been mentioned any wherein the impugned order that after getting released on bail the detenu would be again engaging himself in cow slaughtering which would be detrimental to peace and order of the locality where he resides or does such activities. In the matter of Smt. Bimla Rani v. Union of India (supra) in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Supreme Court pointed out that in the said matter 'the detention order was specifying that the detenu was in jail and was trying to get released on bail and there was every possibility of detenu getting released on bail. In paragraph 3 it has been pointed out that 'it was apparent from the grounds of detention that a crime was registered against detenu u/s. 307, IPC and he was arrested and detained in jail. ' ( 14 ) IN the present case the detention order is not any way detailed answering the situation prevelent, so far as detenu is concerned and his detention already in the jail was concerned. ( 15 ) IN the matter of Surya Prakash Sharma v. State of U. P. (supra), the Supreme Court held that"the detaining authority while passing the detention order should be aware of the fact that detenu is already in detention and there are compelling reasons to justify such detention despite the fact that the detenu is already in detention. " ( 16 ) SO far as the present matter is concerned had there been a legal 'satisfaction' of the detaining authority, the detention order would have specified that the detenu was facing a prosecution for the offence punishable under Ss. 8/10 of M. P. Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act 1959 and he was likely to be released on bail and after getting released on bail he was sure to indulge himself in the same activities of cow slaughtering which was likely to provoke the neighbouring Hindu persons, causing communal riot, endangering the public peace and order. The present detention order is not speaking any word about this. The present detention order is not speaking any word about this. Further more, it is to be noted that there was every possibility of detenu abandoning his activities of cow slaughtering (which was likely to provoke the neighbouring Hindu persons and out breaking communal riot ). The detenu may after releasing, follow the legal way and would restrain himself from such activities. In that case how there could be possibility of danger to public peace and order endangering a communal riot. ( 17 ) THUS, summing up all we come to the conclusion that present detention order which has been assailed by this petition, is bad in law and detenu deserves to be released forthwith. However, we make it clear that the detaining authority is competent to take appropriate steps in future if there are good grounds for the purpose of coming to reasonable conclusion that by illegal activities of the detenu there is likelihood of communal riot endangering the peace and order of the society/locality. ( 18 ) THUS, order passed by the District Magistrate, Shajapur dt. 24-7-96 detaining the detenu Shamim is hereby quashed. The detenu be set a liberty. Petition allowed. .