G. S. N. TRIPATHI, J. This petition is connected with habeas corpus petition No, 40563 of 1997. Both these petitions are being disposed of by a common order. 2. These petitions are under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus directing the opposite parties to release the petitioners forthwith and further for issue of a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quash ing the detention order dated 26-4-1997 passed by the District Magistrate, Rampur (Armexure 1 to the petition), 3. The detention order was passed by the District Magistrate, Rampur, respon dent No. 1 on 26-4-1997 to the effect that she has been satisfied that the petitioners, namely, Iliyas and Nazakat indulged in the criminal activities which are likely to dis turb the public order, therefore, their detention under Section 3 (2) of the Na tional Security Act, 1980 is in the larger interest of the society. 4. The grounds for detention (An-nexure 2 to the petition) were served upon the petitioners alongwith order dated 26-4-1997. It is alleged that on 14-4-1997 at about 7. 30 a. m. Iliyas along his brother, Liaqat with the common intention to will attacked Rameshwar with sharp edged tabal and knife, who was a member of scheduled caste and cut his neck at a public place in a cruel manner. As a result of which, all the members of that community fled away from the village. An FIR was lodged on 14-4-1997 at 9. 15 a. m. in which the petitioners were named. After due in vestigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused. The activities of the petitioners were in such way that nobody had dared to come out of his house and further the members of other com munities were also feeling in secured and for maintaining the public order, the detention of the petitioners was essential. 5. It has been further mentioned in the grounds that the petitioners are al though in Jail but they are trying come out on bail. The petitioners have moved ap plication for grant of bail in the Sessions Court for their release, which is likely to be allowed. 5. It has been further mentioned in the grounds that the petitioners are al though in Jail but they are trying come out on bail. The petitioners have moved ap plication for grant of bail in the Sessions Court for their release, which is likely to be allowed. The District Magistrate is fur ther satisfied that in case, the petitioners come out of jail, they will again disturb the public order, therefore, their detention is essential in the larger interest of the society. 6. The grounds taken by the petitioners are that this, this is only criminal case pending against them. It is alleged that they are the labourers and a false case has been lodged against them. There is no question of disturbance of public order and at the most it can be a case of law and order in the ordinary manner. He did not receive any paper in the jail. Neither the Investigating agency nor the respondent No. 1 had been providing full papers to them as such, their interest has been extremely prejudiced and they could not make any representation to the State Government of the Central Government. Further it is stated that it does not appear that grounds of order were placed before the Advisory Board within 21 days of detention and that has effectively prejudiced the petitioners effectively. 7. Although it has been stated in para 16 of the petition that no bail application was moved on behalf of the petitioners, but they have not taken specific ground in the grounds set up by them. 8. Smt, Leena Nandan, District Magistrate, in her counter-affidavit has stated that all the documents were produced before her and she was fully satisfied regarding the detention of the petitioners before passing the detention order. It is stated in her counter-affidavit that along with the grounds of detention and detention order including relevant materials on which basis the detention order was passed were served upon the petitioners through the Jail authorities. The contents of the same were read over and explained to the petitioners as such, the valid detention order has been passed against them. 9. The contents of the same were read over and explained to the petitioners as such, the valid detention order has been passed against them. 9. Sri S. H. M. Rizvi, the then Superin tendent of Jail, Rampur, in his counter-af fidavit has stated that as per the order of the District Magistrate, Rampur, the petitioners were involved in Case Crime No. 120/97 under Section 302, IPC read with Section 3 (1) in of SC & ST Act, RS. Milak, District Rampur. The detention order was received in District Jail, Ram pur, which was communicated to the petitioners. The contents of the docu ments were read over and explained to the petitioners by the jail authorities. It is wrong to say that the documents were not read over to the petitioners and their sig natures were obtained illegally and without any justification. 10. Sri Gopal Dutt, Upper Division Assistant, in Confidential Section 7, U. P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, on behalf of the respondent No. 3 has filed a counter-affidavit stating that the order passed by the District Magistrate, Rampur dated 26-4-1997 was received in the Secretariat on 28-4-1997 and after examining every aspects of the case of the petitioners in details, the order of detention was ap proved bythe State Government on 5-5-97 i. e. well within twelve days as required under Section 3 (4) of the National Security Act, 1980. This fact about the approval of the detention order was also communicated to the petitioners through the district authorities by the State Government on 6-5-97. The matter was referred to the Central Government along with all the relevant papers, which were received by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi on 11-5-97 well within seven days from the date of ap proval, as required under Section 3 (5) of the National Security Act, 1980. Thus, there is no delay on the part of the State Government. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board on 9-5-1997 by the State Government by forwarding the detention order, along with all the papers. The petitioners appeared before the Board in person. The Advisory Board con sidered every aspect of the case. The report of the Advisory Board along with complete record of the State Government indicating that there was sufficient cause to detain the petitioners was received by the State Government vide Registrar, Advisory Board (Detentions) on 3-6-97. The petitioners appeared before the Board in person. The Advisory Board con sidered every aspect of the case. The report of the Advisory Board along with complete record of the State Government indicating that there was sufficient cause to detain the petitioners was received by the State Government vide Registrar, Advisory Board (Detentions) on 3-6-97. The State Government was of the view that the order of detention deserves to be confirmed, the confirmation order for keeping the petitioners under detention for twelve months from the date of actual detention i. e. 26-4-1997 was issued on 10-6-1997. 11. After hearing the learned Coun sel for the parties, we find that both the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. The satisfaction under the National Security Act is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate, the District Magistrate has not only given this fact in the grounds furnished to the petitioners but also filed her counter-affidavit and deposed that she was fully satisfied on perusing the complete documents that it is in the larger interest of society and public order that the detention order should be passed for detaining the petitioners. On her satisfaction, she passed the detention order and all the formalities under the provisions of the National Security Act were followed. No representation was made by the petitioners to the State Government or Central Government or the Advisory Board. All the relevant docu ments were available to the District Magistrate at the time of passing the detention order. There is nothing to believe the assertions of the petitioners. Sri R. K. Khanna, learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners have not made any application for grant of bail and somebody has maneuvered the same. This is a question of fact. The bail applica tion can be moved only on the instructions of the petitioners. The detention order and relevant documents were read over and explained to the petitioners by the Jail authorities. 12. Thus, there is no force in both the writ petitions. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .