S. K. AGARWAL, J. The present Habeas Corpus petition has been filed by one Sushil Moonchh (Sushil alias Moonchh) son of Chandra Pal Singh Jat, resident of Village Mathedi, P. S. Ratan-puri, District Muzafarnagar, against an order of detention, passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, on 21-1-1999. The detention order was passed under Sec tion 3 (3) of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the nsa ). He is at present confined in District Jail Tehri-Garhwal. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 3. The present order has been chal lenged, amongst other grounds, mainly on the ground that after the refusal by the Advisory Board to ratify or approve the earlier detention order within a very short span of time the petitioner was again detained under the NSA. The previous detention order was passed on 27- 11-1998. It was revoked on 26-12-1998. On 26-12-1998 a programme on the Television under the title "indias Most Wanted" was telecast in connection with the present petitioner disclosing the incident of mur der pertaining to Sunil Sachdeva alias Bittu. After that telecast at 10. 00 p. m. in Zee TV programme the present detention order dated 2-1-1999 was again passed by the District Magistrate. 4. The main grounds taken in the detention order were that as a result of the telecast of the programme "indias Most Wanted" throughout the country, a great anger and anguish was caused in the public mind at large. This programme, specially the narration in detail of the murder of Sunil Sachdeva alias Bittu by you and the members of your gang, has created a deep sense of anguish and raised anger in the public mind. The public on learning the details of your misdeeds felt a sense of fear, terror, and insecurity. It had adversely af fected the maintenance of law and order. Another incident had been reported in this detention order pertaining to 27-12-1998. This pertains to the killing of two impor tant mentbers of the gang of this detenu, viz. Girish Bahuguna and Arun Sharma, in police encounter. The death of two very important members of the gang of this detenu had not only shocked him but also enraged him. The annoyance has gone to the extent of professing by the detenu to avenge the murder of his two close as sociates, named above. Girish Bahuguna and Arun Sharma, in police encounter. The death of two very important members of the gang of this detenu had not only shocked him but also enraged him. The annoyance has gone to the extent of professing by the detenu to avenge the murder of his two close as sociates, named above. He had also taken a vow lo that effect in jail. He had also sent threats to certain persons of the district. Their names have not been disclosed, rightly so, so that these people may not become soft targets of some of his as sociates who are still at large evading the police dragnet including Deepak Sharma. The third reason for the present detention disclosed in the detention order is that the detenu is trying to wipe off the evidence against him with the help of his associates, who are still at large. They are threatening, the witnesses of dire consequences in the event of these witnesses deposing against the detenu. This is adversely affecting the maintenance of law and order. The last ground apparently taken in the detention order is that the detenu-petitioner was currently detained at the District Jail, Garhwal, in connection with case Crime No. 87 of 1998 under Section 2/3 of the U. P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as the gangsters Act only ). 5. It has been urged before us that in the previous detention order, which had been revoked by the Government on 26-12-1998 the above ground was already considered and not found sufficient for deten tion. The previous detention order is also appended to the writ petition as Annexure 17. The grounds of detention are annexed as Annexure 18. A perusal of Annexure 18 gives a clear indication that the incident relating to the murder of Bittu alias Sunil Sachdeva dated 18-6-1998 at about 10. 30 a. m. was already present as ground No. 2 in the earlier grounds of detention. Even ground No. 1 of Annexure 18 categorically shows that there was charge against the petitioner that while detained inside the jail, he was able to carry out nefarious activities including killings not only in Muzaffarnagar, but also in other districts. The activities of the petitioner had adver sely affected the public tranquillity of the region. It had created a sense of insecurity and terror in the public mind. The activities of the petitioner had adver sely affected the public tranquillity of the region. It had created a sense of insecurity and terror in the public mind. Even the ground of his attempt to come out from jail in a case under Section 302, I. P. C. was also taken in the previous order of detention. The only new ground that has been taken in the present detention appears to be that of the telecast of murder of Sunil Sachdev in the programme known as "indias Most Wanted" detailing the events and the of fences committed by the petitioner along with his associates and also murder of Sunil Sachdev specially. Before the other ground that could be said to be a new ground, the ground taken in the present detention order is that as per reliable in formation the petitioner after coming to know of the death of two of his closest associates, viz. Girish Bahuguna and Arun Sharma, dying in police encounter on 27-12-1988, he was extending threats to some persons in the district of Muzaffarnagar and also expressing his anguish in so many words that he would retaliate and will avenge blood by blood. 6. Some dates in this context are material. The most important fact of this case is that the programme "indias Most Wanted" was telecast at 10. 00 p. m. on 22-12-1998 and it adversely affected the public mind or has created a feeling of terror and insecurity. The another impor tant aspect before considering the argu ments also to be given due consideration and it is that the earlier order of detention dated 27-11-1998 was invoked by the Government and the information of revocation must have reached the detenu after a day or two in jail. The incident of police encounter of the two closest as sociates of the petitioner also had taken place on 27-12-1998 and the present detention order came to be passed on 2- 1-1999. The wheels of the time have rolled on so quickly in the case of the present detenu that in a short span of nine days the above-narrated circumstances occurred. This in cludes the revocation of last detention order on 26-12-1998 and the fresh order on 2-1-1999. Except the above mentioned two circumstances, no other new circumstance has been disclosed for fresh detention of the detenu. 7. This in cludes the revocation of last detention order on 26-12-1998 and the fresh order on 2-1-1999. Except the above mentioned two circumstances, no other new circumstance has been disclosed for fresh detention of the detenu. 7. In the present case we are required to go into the merits of these two grounds, as available compositively from the two detention orders and the circumstance. With regard to the validity of the sub sequent detention within a span of five days from the revocation of the previous detention order and the ground respon sible for were not brought to our notice by the State. We have to assess the expediency of the fresh grounds in this backdrop. 8. Apart from the above point, we have yet another factor for consideration for quashing the detention order dated 2-1-1999, i. e. the delay in the decision of the representation of the detenu-petitioner by the Central Government. In our opinion this petition is likely to suc-qeed on both the counts. 9. So far as the present detention order is concerned, in our opinion the detention appears to be hypothetical and not based on any application of mind. We are not considering it from the angle of subjective satisfaction, but nonetheless the grounds narrated in the detention order must give an indication that the District Magistrate, i. e. the Detaining Authority, has applied his mind to the reports received by him from the con cerned police authorities before passing the order against any person to be so detained. The present case shows that ground No. 1 taken in the order of deten tion dated 2-1- 1999, appended to the peti tion as Annexure 2, unerringly reveals that telecast regarding the murder of Sunil Sachdev alias Bithu in the programme Indias Most Wanted on Zee TV at 10. 00 a. m. on 22-12-1998 became the principal reason for passing a fresh order within a short span of five days from the date of revocation of the previous order. The Zee T. V. programme and probably the sarcastic remarks made by its composer made the authorities dizzy and in hot-haste they decided to detain the petitioner again to avoid any public decry. The reasons given in the next paragraph that the encounter resulting into the death of two of his close associates five days after this telecast. The Zee T. V. programme and probably the sarcastic remarks made by its composer made the authorities dizzy and in hot-haste they decided to detain the petitioner again to avoid any public decry. The reasons given in the next paragraph that the encounter resulting into the death of two of his close associates five days after this telecast. There is nothing before us, which may lead us to gather any such inference as narrated in ground No. 2. No doubt, we cannot understand the mind of a culprit whose gang members have lost their lives in kill ing, but the fact yet still remains for con sideration is that the person, the leader of the gang, the detenu-petitioner, was in jail since a considerably long time in cases under Section 302, I. P. C. and Section 2/3 of the Gangster Act and was also making a serious effort to come out from jail. The main ground has been detailed in An nexure 3 on page 23 wherein the contents with regard to the impact of the deaths in a police encounter was contained in the report of Sri Ashutosh Pandey, S. P. Muzaffarnagar. There was no immediate cause for the administration to become panicky. It was also known to the police that the petitioner was in jail in connection with the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. apart from Section 2/3 of the Gangster Act. In the present detention order, in the grounds of detention only factum of deten tion in the District Jail, Tehri- Garhwal, in the offence under Section 2/3 of the aforesaid Act has been detailed. There is no mention of the case under Section 302, I. P. C. and his attempt to obtain bail in that case. This ground is available to us from the grounds of detention of previous detention order, i. e. Annexure 1. This fact is available on page 59. He was trying to obtain bail in case Crime No. 262 of 1998, P. S. Nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar, in an offence under Section 302 I. P. C. there is no mention in this detention order that he has been released on bail or he is still making any such attempt in that offence. 10. He was trying to obtain bail in case Crime No. 262 of 1998, P. S. Nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar, in an offence under Section 302 I. P. C. there is no mention in this detention order that he has been released on bail or he is still making any such attempt in that offence. 10. This circumstances clearly lead us to the conclusion that in order to avoid any public criticism the subsequent detention order was clamped upon the petitioner by the local administration, i. e. the District Magistrate within a short span of five days from the date of revocation of the previous detention order dated 27-11-1998 on 26-12-1998. If there is no Zee TV Programme, there may not have been any subsequent detention ordci. The present detention order is dated 2-1-1999. Apart from that the grounds taken, in our opinion, were only misconceived and hypothetical except G. D. entry made by Head Constable, Asfaq Beg Mutaina, of Police outpost Kunda connected with P. S. Nai Mandi, dated 30- 12-1998, as is avail able from the counter-affidavit submitted by the District Magistrate. This G. D. details the contents of ground No. 2 per taining to the acts of the petitioner from jail. This report further shows that G. D. entry shall be handed over to S. S. I, in-charge of the Police Station Sri B. C. Pan-dey, for further enquiry and verification. Underneath this, Sahayak Nirikshak has put his initials on 1-1-1999. There is another G. D. entry appended, which shows the contents with regard to "indias Most Wanted". Tley are also entered into the G. D. on the information received from the Head Constable No. 95, Genda Lal, and Constable No. 556, Prithvi Singh. There is another entry, vide G. D. No. 29 dated 13-12-1998 by a Constable, Swaroop Singh that amongst the informers there is some discussion that Sushil Moonchh, the person under detention in jail, had taken a view in jail that those who are responsible for the killing of Girish Bahuguna and Arun Sharma, shall be killed by him imme diately on his coming out from jail. This report further shows that there is dif ference between ground No. 2 and the report. The first two reports are identical with the grounds taken in subsequent two reports, but the third report is materially different from these two previous reports. This report further shows that there is dif ference between ground No. 2 and the report. The first two reports are identical with the grounds taken in subsequent two reports, but the third report is materially different from these two previous reports. Apart from these two circumstances, as discussion in this context, there is ab solutely no report suggesting that any en quiry was conducted by the S. H. O. of the Police Station concerned where these G. D. entries had been made. As stated in the first two G. D. entries that these reports, as entered in the G. Ds. shall be handed over to the S. H. O. B. C. Pandey, for enquiry and verification. There is absolutely nothing brought to our notice by the learned Government advocate that any person conducted such an enquiry much-less B. C. Pandey, the S. H. O. In the absence of any such verification of these beat reports (G. D.), we are not inclined to at tach any importance to the averments made in the grounds of detention dated 2-l-1999, served upon the petitioner. So far as the telecasted programme "indias Most Wanted" dated 22-12-1998 is concerned, it should not have been taken into consideration by the local administration and the detaining authority for pass ing a fresh detention Border against the petitioner. In our opinion, it does not con stitute any ground for detaining the petitioner. These facts were already the grounds of detention dated 27-11-1998 and it was within the knowledge of the detaining authority that the order was revoked by the State Government on 26-12-1998. Thus, the circumstance that a TV Programme pertaining to one Deepak Sharma and his activities projected on the TV by "indias Most Wanted" on 22-12-1998 should not have been utilised by the administration against the petitioner as the backbone of his present detention. 11. In view of this discussion, the detention order can be quashed on this ground alone, but still we prefer to discuss the lapses on the part of Union of India in an expeditious disposal of the repre sentation of the detenu. The State Governments report under Section 3 (5) of the NSA was received in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, on 8-1-1999. The concerned authorities decided not to interfere in the above said detention order dated 2-1-1999 on 18-1-1999. The State Governments report under Section 3 (5) of the NSA was received in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, on 8-1-1999. The concerned authorities decided not to interfere in the above said detention order dated 2-1-1999 on 18-1-1999. The comments of the District Magistrate along with representation were received by the State Government on 21-1- 1999. The officials of the Ministry of Home Affairs required some vital infor mation (opinion of the Advisory Board) from the Government of U. P. through a crash wireless message dated 22-1-1999. The required information was received in the Ministry from the State Government vide its communication dated 6-2-1999 on 8-2-1999. The detenus case was put up before the Director, Ministry of Home Affairs, by the officials of the Ministry on 11-2-1999, it was cojtisidered and was for warded to the Special Secretary along with his comments by the Director, Ministry of Home Affairs on the same day. The Special Secretary considered the case and for warded the same along with his comments to the Home Minister for consideration of this representation on 12-2-1999. 13th, 14th, 20th and 21st February, 1999 were shown as holidays in paragraph No. 8 of the counter-affidavit. The Home Minister could find time to consider the repre sentation only on 22-2-1999. He con sidered and rejected the representation. It took him 10 days out of which according to the Central Government, four days were holidays. All these facts are contained in the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Bina Prasad, an official in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. 12. This Court in the case of Dora alias Arif v. Superintendent of Jail and Others, (H. C.) Writ Petition No. 26144 of 1998, has already held that intermittent holidays falling during the period could not be picked up for explaining the delay. In the present case in all 10 days were taken by the Home Minister in deciding the representation, out of which four dates are shown as holidays. The first two holidays fell on 13th and 14th February, 1999, but since 14th to 20th and 21st February, 1999 there were five working days intervening and absolutely no explanation is coming forth from the side or the Home Minister to show that in the disposal of the repre sentation no undue time was taken by him. The first two holidays fell on 13th and 14th February, 1999, but since 14th to 20th and 21st February, 1999 there were five working days intervening and absolutely no explanation is coming forth from the side or the Home Minister to show that in the disposal of the repre sentation no undue time was taken by him. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajan Mal v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, JT 1998 (8) SC 598. Thus, the argument that the delay in disposal of the representation of the petitioner by the Home Minister has been sufficiently ex plained does not hold ground. It is settled law that unexplained delay in disposal of the representation of a detenu renders the continued detention bad in law. In the case at hand, we are of the view, that the delay has not been properly explained, which is a violation of the constitutional mandate and infringes personal liberty of the petitioner. 13. Learned Government Advocate has also raised an argument with regard to the applicability of the provision of Sec tion 14 of the NSA in the present case especially sub-section (2 ). We are of the considered opinion that point is not at all required for any consideration by us in view of the findings returned by us on the two points raised before the bench by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. So far as applicability of Section 14 (2) is concerned, it is available only if new grounds or fresh facts have arisen after the date of revocation or expiry of the previous order. This argument needs no fresh consideration by us since it was already dealt with by Apex Court threadbare in Ismail v. State of Maharashtra, 1982 Cr. L. J. 582. The categorical observation by the Apex Court is as under: "if these two sub-sections are read together then, it is more than clear that both these sections create a bar for making a fresh detention order unless fresh facts have arisen after the date of revocation or expiry of the order. Unless fresh facts had arisen it was not open to the Police Commissioner to pass a fresh order under the National Security Act in view of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the said Act. Unless fresh facts had arisen it was not open to the Police Commissioner to pass a fresh order under the National Security Act in view of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the said Act. " In the end of the Supreme Court went on to observe further, as a clear note of caution: "therefore, in our opinion the authorities can not be permitted to achieve indirectly, what has been directly forbidden by Section 14 (2) of the Act. " 15. We have been kept in dark by the State Government with regard to the cause or reasons for revocation of previous detention order. It is not the case of the State that last detention order was defec tive in point of form or had become unenforceable. These questions does not arise at all because term revocation is inclusive of all orders, valid and invalid. It has been expressly held in, Halebandhu Das v. Dis trict Magistrate, Cuttack, AIR 1969 SC 43 : 1969 Cr. LJ 274, in these words: "the word revocation is not in our judg ment, capable of a restricted interpretation without any indication by Parliament of such an intention. " Observations made by Apex Court in para 12 of this judgment are relevant as well as im portant and need to be quoted: "negligence or inaptitude of the detaining authority in making a defective order or in fail ing to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act may in some case ensue for the benefit of the detenu to which he is not entitled. But it must be remembered that the Act confers power to make a serious invasion upon the liber ty of the citizen by subjective determination of facts by an executive authority, and the Parlia ment has provided several safeguards against misuse of the power. . . . . . and the principle under lying Section 13 (2) is in our view the outcome of insistence by the Parliament that the detaining authority shall fully apply its mind too and com ply with the requirements of the statute and of insistence upon refusal to countenance slip shod exercise of power. " 16. In Masood Alam v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 897 : 1970 Cr. " 16. In Masood Alam v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 897 : 1970 Cr. LJ 627, the Supreme Court has dealt with the scope and applicability of Section 14 (2) of the Act in an unequivocal form thus: "the principle underlying this section has its roots in the vital importance attached to the fundamental right of personal liberty guaran teed by our Constitution. The Act fixes the max imum period of detention to be 12 months from the date of detention with the proviso that the appropriate Government can revoke or modify the detention order at any earlier time. Section 13, it is to effectuate this restriction on the maxi mum period and to ensure that it is not rendered nugatory or ineffective by resorting to the camouflage of making a fresh order operative soon after the expiry of the period of detention as also to minimise resort to detention orders that Section 14 restricts the detention of a per son on given set of facts to the original order and does not permit a fresh order to be made on the same grounds which were in existence, when the original order was made. . . . " 17. Thus no fresh order can be passed by way of any camouflage and no person can be permitted to be so detained under any such order of detention. This country of ours is governed by rule of law and if we permit this to happen frequently then we shall be permitting jungle law to thrive. No colourable exercise of power by an execu tive authority be permitted to overcome the bar of Section 14 (2) of the National Security Act. Past proximal conduct is al ways relevant factor in such cases provided it has a rational nexus with the urgency to detain any person under this Act so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 18. In these circumstances this Court is fully competent to explore that nexus. In our opinion from our discussion made ear lier there exist no such nexus. 19. Moreover, this Court is also en titled to examine what are the basic facts and materials, which actually and in fact weighed with the detaining authority in reaching the requisite satisfaction. 18. In these circumstances this Court is fully competent to explore that nexus. In our opinion from our discussion made ear lier there exist no such nexus. 19. Moreover, this Court is also en titled to examine what are the basic facts and materials, which actually and in fact weighed with the detaining authority in reaching the requisite satisfaction. The judicial scrutiny in these kind of deten tions cannot be allowed to be foreclosed on a mere statement of the detaining authority that his subjective satisfaction is based on so and so facts. These are cases where a person comes to be detained without any trial. 20. We are fortified in our view by observation of the Supreme Court made in Khudiram Das v. State of U. P. 21. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The detention order dated 2-1-1999 of the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, is quashed being bad in law. The continued detention of the petitioner is also rendered bad in law and is quashed. We direct that the petitioner, who is detained, shall be released forthwith un less wanted in any other connection. Judgment has been pronounced under Chapter VII, Rule 2 of the Rules of Government. Since Honble S. K. Agarwal J. is sitting at Allahabad. Petition allowed. .