Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 134 (DEL)

VINOD KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA

2001-02-05

B.K.RAMAMOORTHY

body2001
K. RAMAMOORTHY ( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the detention order passed by the Government of n. C. T. under the National Security Act, 1980. Before introducing the grounds of challenge in the writ petition it would be convenient for the appreciation of the case to notice a few facts. The petitioner has been indulging himself in activities which are criminal in nature and has been terrorising people with reference to the submission of tenders to the different authorities including M. C. D. Taking into account the activities of the petitioner, on 1/6/1998 an order u/s 47 of the D. P. Act, 1978 was passed. Inspite of the surveillance by the police the petitioner continued with his activities and, therefore, the Government had to resort to the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980. An order of detention was passed on 8/6/1999 by the Commissioner of Police. On 11/6/1999 the petitioner made a representation to this Court. On 15/6/1999 the government of N. C. T. approved the order of Commissioner dated 8/6/1999 U/s 3 (5) national Security Act, 1980. On 16/6/1999 a report was submitted by Govt. of N. C. T. to the Central Government. That was received by the Central Government on 21/6/1999. The Central Government after considering all the facts decided that no case has been made for interference and that decision was taken on 22/6/1999. On 22/6/1999 the petitioner sent his representation to the Central Government. On 22/6/1999 the petitioner sent his representation to the Central Government. On 28/6/1999 the petitioner made a representation to the Lt. Governor. That representation was received by the Central Government on 8/7/1999. On 12/7/1999 the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs with the comments put up the matter before the Joint Secretary. On 12/7/1999 the Joint Secretary with the comments put up before the Minister of State (Home ). On 13/7/1999 the Minister of State (Home) rejected the case of the petitioner after considering all the relevant aspects. The petitioner was informed of the decision of the Central Government on 14/7/1999. ( 2 ) THEREUPON the petitioner filed the Cri. Writ No. 1186/99 in this Court without surrendering to the custody. The petitioner had been avoiding and was trying to challenge the detention order. ( 3 ) ON 8. 12. 1999 Cri. W. No. 1186/99 was dismissed by this Court. ( 2 ) THEREUPON the petitioner filed the Cri. Writ No. 1186/99 in this Court without surrendering to the custody. The petitioner had been avoiding and was trying to challenge the detention order. ( 3 ) ON 8. 12. 1999 Cri. W. No. 1186/99 was dismissed by this Court. ( 4 ) THE petitioner took up the matter to the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave petition. On 11/2/2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition. ( 5 ) THE petitioner was arrested in FIR No. 329/95 u/s 506/34indian Penal Code P. S. Roop Nagar. The petitioner getting the bail cancelled surrendered before Court on 17/2/2000. On 14/3/2000 the detention order was served upon the petitioner. On 3/4/2000 the petitioner made a representation to the Advisory Board. By letter dated 5/4/2000 the jail Authorities sent copies to Deputy Secretary (Home), Govt. of N. C. T. , Commissioner of Police and the Central Government. On 13/4/2000 the Government of N. C. T. rejected the representation. The Commissioner of Police rejected the representation on 18/4/2000. On 25/4/2000 the petitioner again made a representation to the central Government. The Central Government rejected the representation dated 3/4/2000 on 3/5/2000. On 11/5/2000 the Govt. of N. C. T. in exercise of power conferred u/s 12 (1) of the National Security Act, 1980 passed order of confirmation of the detention order. On 3/7/2000 the above writ petition was presented in this court. The order of detention dated 8/6/1999 reads as under:- "whereas, I, V. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Delhi am satisfied that with a view to prevent Sh. Vinod Kumar S/o Chhattar Singh R/o 5797/7, New chandrawal; Delhi aged about 33 years from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make an order directing that Sh. Vinod Kumar be detained. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred vide sub-section (2) of the Section-3 of the National Security Act, 1980 as deleted to me vide government of National Capital Territory of Delhi s order No. F. 2. /1/88-HP- ll (pt)/2125 dated 16/4/1999, I hereby direct that the said Vinod Kumar be detained and kept in Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. " ( 6 ) THE ground of detention was served on the petitioner which would refer to the criminal activities of the petitioner which led to the order of detention. /1/88-HP- ll (pt)/2125 dated 16/4/1999, I hereby direct that the said Vinod Kumar be detained and kept in Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. " ( 6 ) THE ground of detention was served on the petitioner which would refer to the criminal activities of the petitioner which led to the order of detention. The commissioner in the detention order had adverted to the past criminal activities of the petitioner. The Commissioner had noticed that the petitioner had started his criminal activities when he was 20 years old in the year 1986 and since then there has been no change in his conduct. Though the petitioner was acquitted in three criminal cases referred to by the Commissioner. The petitioner after release from jail resumed his criminal activities of attempt to murder, kidnapping, criminal intimidation, mischief, voluntary causing hurt by dangerous weapon and was violating the provisions of the Army Act. The Commissioner had said "being a leader of a criminal group and his propensity to use fire arms and indulge in violence at public places in pursuit of his objectives have rendered him a grave threat to the maintenance of public order". The Commissioner had also taken note of the fact that the petitioner has been in the habit of intimidating the witnesses and the notoriety and the terro employed by the petitioner had deterred people from reporting his criminal activities. From this it could be visualised what sort of person the petitioner is causing havoc to the public peace and tranquility. The Commissioner had taken into action the following cases registered against the petitioner: - "1. FIR No. 164 dt. 23/7/1993 u/s 302/365/325/342/34indian Penal Code PS Adarsh Nagar. 2. FIR No. 176/93 dated 4. 8. 93 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Adarsh Nagar 3. FIR No. 205/94 u/s 323/506indian Penal Code PS Mukherjee Nagar 4. FIR No. 329 dated 19/11/1995 u/s 506/34indian Penal Code PS Roop Nagar 5. FIR No. 323 dated 18/12/1995 u/s 307/427/34indian Penal Code PS K. Puram. ( 7 ) AFTER referring to the above cases, the Commissioner has said:- "vinod Kumar has been granted bail in all the above mentioned cases. There is every apprehension that he can at any time again indulge in the criminal activities that are highly prejudicial to the public order and tranquility as it is evident that Vinod Kumar operates a gang in MCD Divisions to grab the MCD registered contractors. There is every apprehension that he can at any time again indulge in the criminal activities that are highly prejudicial to the public order and tranquility as it is evident that Vinod Kumar operates a gang in MCD Divisions to grab the MCD registered contractors. He forcibly decides which contractor willsubmit and get contact for any work in M. C. D. Most of the registered contractors are silent spectators to this game of extortion perhaps because it even suits some of them and eliminates competition. He has imposed so much terror and fear among the public as well as contractors that no body even dare to come forward to complain against him. A complaint dated 21/2/1998 sent by ravinder Kumar Jatav against Vinod Kumar was received in the office of dcp/north-West concerning his antisocial activities but no action could be taken as the said complainant has not been available yet. The complainant has not mentioned his address on the complaint. It seems that the complainant has no courage to give his statement against the said Vinod Kumar due to fear for his life. The complaint is reportedly still pending. After great persuasion and assurance of complete secrecy two contractors have given their statements about the activities of gang. The complaints submitted by the Contractors against the criminal activities of Vinod Kumar may be produced before the hon ble Advisory Board or before the Hon ble High Court seeking apprehension that in case the same is served upon the detenue the life of the both the contractors may be in danger by the hands of Vinod Kumar and his associates. From the above said heinous acts and designs of Vinod Kumar it is evident that he is a desperate and dangerous criminal who in pursuant of his criminal objectives does not hesitate to assault/obstruct the public servant in discharge of their official duties in broad day light at public place. His activities have caused a great scare in the minds of public. He is in the habit of keeping fire arms and other dangerous weapons. He has been able to terrorize the witnesses and prevented from deposing against him anything in the court of law as is evident from FIR Nos. 639/86, 164/93, 205/94 and 323/95 in which the injured and the eye-witnesses turned hostile due to the terror and fear of vinod Kumar. He has been able to terrorize the witnesses and prevented from deposing against him anything in the court of law as is evident from FIR Nos. 639/86, 164/93, 205/94 and 323/95 in which the injured and the eye-witnesses turned hostile due to the terror and fear of vinod Kumar. Despite his arrest/prosecution in a number of cases, he could not be effectively. deterred from his violent and criminal activities which are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. With a view to prevent him from committing the aforesaid violent and criminal activities which are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is felt necessary to detain him u/s 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980. " ( 8 ) THIS was considered by the concerned authorities and the representations made by the petitioner had been rejected by all the authorities. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Herjinder Singh submitted that the detaining authority had not taken into consideration the externment order dated 1/6/1998 wherein the petitioner was ordered to furnish a personal bond in the sum of rs. 30,000. 00. The learned counsel submitted that the order of externment proceedings initiated by the DCP were not placed before the detaining authority and as the samel 2. was-not done, the detention order becomes illegal. The learned counsel referred to under the following rulings:- 1. Khudiram Das Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors. , 1974 (2) SCR 839. 2. Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , (1999) 6 scc 593 , at page 600, para 13. 3. A. Sowkath All Vs. Union of India and Ors. , (2000) 7 SCC 148 . 4. Yumnam Mangibabu Singh Vs. State of Manipur and Ors. , 1982 (3) SCC 18 , at page 23, para 4. ( 10 ) THE learnned counsel submitted as a proposition culling out from above rulings that it is the duty of the Court to examine what are the basic facts and materials which actually weighed with the detaining authority to satisfy himself about the grounds. The learned counsel submitted that vital material documents should have been placed before the detaining authority and if they have been placed by them had influenced the decision making process of the detaining authority. Those documents must have been supplied along with the grounds of detention to the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that vital material documents should have been placed before the detaining authority and if they have been placed by them had influenced the decision making process of the detaining authority. Those documents must have been supplied along with the grounds of detention to the petitioner. The learned counsel relied upon the following rulings:- 1. Ahmed Nassar Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. , JT 1999 (8) SC 252. 2. Md. Shakil Wahid Ahmed Vs. State of Maharashtra. AIR 1983 SC 541 . 3. UOI Vs. M. L. Narang. AIR 1987 SC 1472 . 4. M. Ahmed Kutty Vs. Union of India and Anr. JT 1990 (1 ) SC 143. 5. Ganga Ramchand Bharyani Vs. Under Secretary to the Govt. of ( 11 ) THE learned counsel submitted that uncommunicated materials have been taken into account by the detaining authority and the approving authority and non communication of the same to the detenu would come within the mischief of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel brought to our notice paragraph xv of the grounds in the writ petition. In ground No. XV the petitioner had submitted:- "the petitioner submits that uncommunicated material has been taken into consideration by the detaining authority as it has been stated in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is a desperate criminal. The detaining authority has taken into consideration uncommunicated material making the detention illegal. All the grounds are relatable to law and order and there being no ground with regard to the public order, the order of detention is dehorse the provisions of National Security Act and a such it is not preventive but punitive. " ( 12 ) THE learned counsel brought to our notice ground No. XVI which reads as under:- "the petitioner says that various bail applications, bail orders, were neither placed before the approving authority. The petitioner had been granted bail in all the cases. These bail applications and bail orders in the cases referred to in para 16 supra have not been placed before the detaining authority, which vitiates the detention order. " ( 13 ) THE Government of N. C. T. in his counter had refuted the stand taken by the etitioner in ground XV. It is stated:- "the contentions raised by the petitioner vide Grounds XV is wrong and denied. " ( 13 ) THE Government of N. C. T. in his counter had refuted the stand taken by the etitioner in ground XV. It is stated:- "the contentions raised by the petitioner vide Grounds XV is wrong and denied. Copies of all the documents relied upon by the detaining authority have already been supplied to the petitioner at the time of execution of detention order. Moreover, the copies of complaints submitted by the contractors against the criminal activities of the petitioner could not be supplied to him seeking apprehension that in case the same served upon the petitioner the life of contractors may be in danger by the hands of the petitioner and his associates. However, these copies have also been placed before the Advisory Board and the same will be produced before the Hon ble court as and when required by the Hon ble Court. " ( 14 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the material relied upon by the detaining authority with reference to the statements of the two contractors cannot the served upon the detenu would show that the detaining authority had admittedly not communicated the material and thus there has been a clear violation of Article 22 (5) the Constitution of India. The learned counsel submitted that the State had not aimed any privilege u/s 8 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 or under Article 22 (6) of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel pressed into service the following rulings:- 1. Bhuth Nath Matte Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 806 . 2. Go/am Hossain Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 895 . 3. Erukulangra Kunhumohamed Vs. UOI, 37 (1989) DLT 292. 4. Narsingh Chhogaji \/s. Police Commissioner Vadodara and Ors; 1987 (1) Crimes 557 at page 560 (Gujarat High Court ). 5. Ganpat Singh Mangal Singh Vs. The State of Gujarat and Ors. , 1987 (2) crimes 488. ( 15 ) THE learned counsel submitted that in the case decided by the Gujarat High court the statements recorded were furnished but the names of the witnesses were not given and on that ground the Court held that the detention was violative of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. , 1987 (2) crimes 488. ( 15 ) THE learned counsel submitted that in the case decided by the Gujarat High court the statements recorded were furnished but the names of the witnesses were not given and on that ground the Court held that the detention was violative of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that when the detaining authority had not given the statements or the names of the witnesses it is an a fortiori case and, therefore, the detention is violative of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. Thus, the learned counsel proceeded to submit that uncommunicated material had been taken into account is a matter of beyond any doubt and, therefore, the detention order cannot be sustained. ( 16 ) THE learned counsel submitted that the order of externment had influenced the mind of the detaining authority and that ought to have been supplied a pari passu the grounds of detention. The learned counsel relied upon the following rulings:- 1. M. Ahamedkutty Vs. Union of India and Anr. , JT 1990 (1) SC 143. 2. Gurdeep Singh Vs. UOI, AIR 1981 SC 362 . 3. Tushar Thakka Vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1981 SC 436 . 4. Mohd. Zakir Vs. Delhi Admn. and Others. AIR 1982 SC 696 . 5. Pritam Nath Hoon Vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1981 SC 92 . ( 17 ) THE learned counsel further submitted that assuming that the representation made by the petitioner were considered, there had been delay and that has not bee explained and. therefore, the detention order is vitiated. The learned counsel referred in this connection to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Venmathi Selva (Mrs.) Vs. State of T. N. and Anr. , JT 1998 (4) SC 393. The Supreme Court in the case said:- THOUGH the delay is not long. it has remained unexplained. Though the delay by itself is not fatal, the delay which remains unexplained becomes unreasonable. In spite of this well settled legal position the State Govt. has failed to explain satisfactorily that it had dealt with the representation of the detenu as promptly as possible. " ( 18 ) THE learned counsel also referred to judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajammal vs. State of T. N. and Anr. , JT 1998 (8) SC 598. In spite of this well settled legal position the State Govt. has failed to explain satisfactorily that it had dealt with the representation of the detenu as promptly as possible. " ( 18 ) THE learned counsel also referred to judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajammal vs. State of T. N. and Anr. , JT 1998 (8) SC 598. There also the Supreme Court has said:- "the position, therefore, now is that if delay was caused on account of any indifference or lapse in considering the representation, such delay will adversely affect further detention of the prisoner. In other words, it is for the authority concerned to explain the delay, if any, in disposing of the representation. It is not enough to say that the delay was very short. Even longer delay can as well be explained. So the test is not the duration or range of delay, but how it is explained by the authority concerned. " ( 19 ) THE learned counsel submitted that the facts mentioned in grounds for detention would relate to the year 1995 and they have no nexus of order of detention and in the cases referred to by the detaining authority the petitioner had been acquitted and the around do not relate to public order but would relate only to law and order. ( 20 ) THE learned counsel submitted that the detaining authority had not seen the judgments by which the petitioner had been acquitted. There is no reference at all any where from which it could be said that the Court had come to the conclusion that the petitioner could have threatened the witnesses. The learned counsel referred to the judgment of this Court in Rajiv Gandhi Ekta Samiti Vs. Union of India and Anr. , 2000 (1) JCC (Delhi) 188. There this Court was concerned with the question whether the order of externment could be sustained. The argument before this Court was the assumption by the Deputy Commissioner that the witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence against the petitioner therein due to fear was not based on any material and there was no observation by the Court that the witnesses did not come forward to depose against the petitioner because of fear. That argument was accepted by this Court and the order of externment was set aside. That is a different question. That argument was accepted by this Court and the order of externment was set aside. That is a different question. ( 21 ) THE question whether witnesses were not come forward to give evidence against a particular person out of fear would have to be considered on the conspectus of events and the overall circumstances projected by the detaining authority. It cannot be said that when there is no observation by the Court the authority cannot form an opinion if the circumstances warrant an inference that the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence because the person would terrorise them. It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law where there is no observation in the judgment there can be no inference to the above effect. The rulings brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Herjinder Singh do not help the petitioner. ( 22 ) THE learned counsel for the State Ms. Mukta Gupta submitted that the petitioner had been detained on the grounds mentioned in the grounds of detention and the petitioner was considered to be a grave threat to the maintenance of the public order, and he was threatening people not to file tenders and nobody came forward to depose against him. The learned counsel submitted that it is evident from 15 FIRs. which are referred to by the detaining authority, that nobody is prepared to take the risk of giving evidence against the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that the statements recorded in camera need not be supplied to the detenu. The learned counsel referred to Article 22 (6) of the Constitution which reads as under:- "nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority making any such order as is referred to in that clause to disclose facts which such authority considers to be against the public interest to disclose. ". ( 23 ) THE learned counsel submitted having regard to larger public interest and in order to maintain the purity of administration and having regard to the conduct of the petitioner and having in mind the interest of the persons who had given statements the detaining authority acted in accordance with Article 22 (6) of the Constitution of india. The learned counsel referred to the following rulings:- 1. Wasi Uddin Ahmed Vs. The District Magistrate, Aligarh, U. P. and others, AIR 1981 S. C. 2166. 2. The learned counsel referred to the following rulings:- 1. Wasi Uddin Ahmed Vs. The District Magistrate, Aligarh, U. P. and others, AIR 1981 S. C. 2166. 2. State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagdev Sihgh Talwandi, AIR 1984 SC 444 . 3. State of Rajasthan and another Vs. Shamsher Singh, AIR 1985 S. C. 1082. 4. 1990 (2) Maharashtra Law Report 245. 5. Smt. Satmabegum Mohamed Razak Khan Vs. Satish Sahney, commissioner of Police, Gr. Bombay and others. 1995 All India High Court cases 6605. 6. Surjeet Singh vs State and Anr. , 1998 (1) JCC (Delhi) 191. 7. Phulwari Jagdambaprasad Pathak (SMT) Vs. R. H. Mendonca and others. (2000) 6 S. C. C. 751. ( 24 ) IN AIR 1981 S. C. 2166 (supra) the Supreme Court had to consider the similar question when the argument was there was violation of the Article 22 (5) of the constitution of India. The Supreme Court held:- "no doubt, the constitutional imperatives of Art. 22 (5) enjoin the disclosure of all the basic facts and materials which have taken into account by the detaining authority in making the order of detention, but this right of the detenu is subject to the provisions of Art. 22 (6 ). Article 22 (6) of the Constitution provides that nothing in cl. (5) shall require an authority making an order of detention, to disclose facts which such authority considers to be against the public interest. Under Art. 22 (6 ). the District Magistrate was. therefore, not bound to disclose the intelligence reports and it was also not necessary for him to supply the history-sheet, if any. In Khudiram Das v. State of West bengal. ( AIR 1975 SC 550 ) (supra) the Court. In somewhat similar circumstances, held that the non-disclosure of the history-sheet had not the effect of invalidating the order of detention. "( 25 ) IN AIR 1984 S. C. 444 (supra) before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme court of India similar contention was raised. It was contended that the detaining authority should have disclosed the evidence on the basis of which order of detention was passed and the detenu could make effective representation only he was made aware of the evidence against him. The Constitution Bench held:- "there is no substance in this contention. It was contended that the detaining authority should have disclosed the evidence on the basis of which order of detention was passed and the detenu could make effective representation only he was made aware of the evidence against him. The Constitution Bench held:- "there is no substance in this contention. It is not a law that the evidence gathered by the detaining authority against the detenu himself also be furnished to him. "dealing with the earlier cases, the Supreme Court observed:- LN Beni Madhob Shaw Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1973 SC 2455 : (1973 Cri LJ 1621 ). it was argued on behalf of the detenu that the details of the activities attributed to him were not disclosed to him. as a result of which is right to make a representation to the Government-was seriously prejudiced. It was held by this Court that since the activities forming the grounds of detention were disclosed to the detenu in clear terms and since such disclosure furnished adequate information to the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation against his detention, the non-disclosure of sources of information or the exact words of the information which formed the foundation of the order of detention could not be complained of. In Har Jas Dev Singh Vs. State of Punjab. (1974) 1 SCR 281 . 288: ( AIR 1973 SC 2469 at p. 2474 ). it was held that the conclusions drawn from the available facts constitute the grounds and that the grounds must be supplied to the detenu. The Court observed that the detenu is not entitled to know the evidence nor the source of the information. What must be furnished to him are the grounds of detention and the particulars which would enable him to make out a case. if he can. for the consideration of the detaining authority. In Vakil Singh Vs. State of J. and K. , AIR 1974 SC 2337 . 2341: (1975 Cri LJ 7 at p. 11 ). it was held that since the basic facts, as distinguished from factual details were incorporated in the material which was supplied to the detenu. nothing more was required to be intimated to him in order to enable him to make an effective representation. 2341: (1975 Cri LJ 7 at p. 11 ). it was held that since the basic facts, as distinguished from factual details were incorporated in the material which was supplied to the detenu. nothing more was required to be intimated to him in order to enable him to make an effective representation. " ( 26 ) IN 1990 (2) Maharashtra Law Report 245 (supra) the Bombay High Court following the dictum of the Supreme Court held that failure to disclose the names of the witnesses whose statements were recorded in camera could not be said to have resulted in depriving of an opportunity to the detenu to make effective representation because the practice of recording statements in camera is accepted and recognised by all the Courts in India and approved by the Supreme Court of India. ( 27 ) IN 1995 All India High Court Cases 6605 (supra) the Bombay High Court again reiterated that withholding of such particulars on the ground of public interest was fully justified. ( 28 ) IN 1998 (6) JCC 198 (supra) this court while considering the correctness of the externment order took the view that the statements of witnesses recorded in camera can be relied upon. ( 29 ) IN (2000) 6 SCC 751 (supra) the Supreme Court considered the question in the following term:- "then comes the crucial question whether "in-camera" statements of persons/ witnesses can be utilized for the purpose of arriving at subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority for passing the order of detention. Our attention has not been drawn to any provision of the Act which expressly or impliedly lays down the type of material which can form the basis of a detention order under Section 3 of the Act. Preventive detention measure is harsh, but it becomes necessary in the larger interest of society. It is in the nature of a precautionary measure taken for preservation of public order. The power is to be used with caution and circumspection. For the purpose of exercise of the power it is not necessary to prove to the hilt that the person concerned had Committed any of the offences as stated in the Act. It is in the nature of a precautionary measure taken for preservation of public order. The power is to be used with caution and circumspection. For the purpose of exercise of the power it is not necessary to prove to the hilt that the person concerned had Committed any of the offences as stated in the Act. It is sufficient if from the material available on record the detaining authority could reasonably feel satisfied about the necessity for detention of the person concerned in order to prevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In the absence of any provision specifying the type of material which may or may not be taken into consideration by the detaining authority and keeping in view the purpose the statute is intended to achieve, the power vested in the detaining authority should not be unduly restricted. It is neither possible nor advisable to catalogue the types of materials which can form the basis of a detention order under the Act. That will depend on the facts and situation of a case. Presumably, that is why Parliament did not make any provision in the Act in that regard and left the matter to the discretion of the detaining authority. However, the facts stated in the materials relied upon should be true and should have a reasonable nexus with the purpose for which the order is passed. " ( 30 ) HAVING regard to the principles adumberated above, we find considerable force in the submissions made by Ms. Mukta Gupta on behalf of the respondents. ( 31 ) IT is not necessary to refer to the averments in the writ petition and the averments in the counter filed by the first respondent and the Government of N. C. T. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was non application of mind and the materials not communicated to the petitioner are relied upon by the detaining authority. ( 32 ) ON a consideration of whole of the facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the submission made by Mr. Herjinder Singh. We do not find any invalidity in the order of detention passed by the detaining authority. We have also perused the files produced by the respondents. ( 32 ) ON a consideration of whole of the facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the submission made by Mr. Herjinder Singh. We do not find any invalidity in the order of detention passed by the detaining authority. We have also perused the files produced by the respondents. We are satisfied that the respondents have acted in accordance with the provisions of National Security Act, 1980 and the provisions of the Constitution. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.