JUDGMENT : P. C. Naik, J. - The petitioner herein challenges the order of detention whereby his brother Godhi alias Ranjan Mahala (hereinfter referred to as "the detenu") has been detained in terms of a order dated 4.3.2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Cuttack u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short, "the Act"). The further prayer is for quashing the order of approval dated 12.3.2001 (Annexure - 3) and the order of confirmation dated 16.4.2001 (Annexure - 4) and for declaring his continued detention to be illegal and unwarranted. 2. It is not disputed that at the time of passing of the detention order, the detenu was in jail custody in Choudwar Circle Jail and the order of detention was served on him on 15.3.2001. The grounds of detention along with all enclosures in English as well as Oriya language which were relied upon by the detaining authority forming a subjective satisfaction was served on the detenu onn 7.2.2001. The order of detention was approved by the State Government on 12.3.2001. Though informed that he had a right to make a representation, that right was not exercised by the detenu even before the Advisory Board which submitted its report that there was sufficient cause for his detention. On a consideration of the entire material before it, the order of detention was confirmed by the State Government on 16.4.2001. The report u/s 3(5) of the Act was made to the Central Government by the State Government vide its letter dated 13.3.2001. Said report was received by the Central Government on 20.3,2001 and after due examination, vide order dated 27,3.2001 the Central Government was of the opinion that there was no cause to interfere with the order of detention. The representation dated 19.4.2001 of the detenu along with the parawise comments of the detaining authority was received by the central government on 3.5.2001 vide letter dated 26.4.200t of the State Government order dated 13.3.2001. The matter was duly considered whereafter the representation was rejected on 8.5.2001, the 5th, 6th and 7th day of May, 2001 being holidays, which is clear from the affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Government. The matter was duly considered whereafter the representation was rejected on 8.5.2001, the 5th, 6th and 7th day of May, 2001 being holidays, which is clear from the affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Government. From eh affidavit of the State Government it is clear that the English version of the representation of the detenu dated 19.42001 addressed to the State Government and the Government of India were received in the Home Department on 23.4.2001 along with the parawise comments of the detaining authority. The same were duly considered along with other material and the representation was rejected on 25.4.2001. Thus, it is seen that all the statutory safeguards were taken. Indeed, this aspect was also not specifically challenged at the time of hearing. Accordingly, we need not delve into this aspect of the matter and further. 3. The detention is assailed, inter alia, on the ground that there has been a delay in passing the order of detention in as much as the last occurrence relating to the criminal activity involving the detenu was of 16.11.2000 while the order of detention was passed on 4.3.2001 for which there is no explanation that oriya translation of two documents, i.e. injury reports which were relied upon by the detaining authority, were not supplied which has caused prejudice to the detenu who is not conversant with English language; that the detaining authority was influenced by extraneous material not disclosed to the detenu; and that the activities relied upon in forming the subjective satisfaction relate to "law and order" and not "public order". It was also contended that as the petitioner was in custody and his bail petition having been rejected, there was no likelihood of his being enlarged on bail and indulging himself in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 4. To the counter affidavit filed by the detaining authority, the grounds of detention along with annexures that were served on the petitioner have been collectively annexed as Annexure-2. Each page thereof bears the signature of the detenu which has been attested by the jail authorities. The file of the detaining authority also indicates so. It is, no doubt true that the Oriya translation of the injury reports were not supplied to the detenu but, in our opinion, this cannot be held to be sufficient to vitiate the order of detention. The file of the detaining authority also indicates so. It is, no doubt true that the Oriya translation of the injury reports were not supplied to the detenu but, in our opinion, this cannot be held to be sufficient to vitiate the order of detention. The translated copies of the F.I.R. statement of different witnesses examined and the grounds on which the order of detention was based, have been supplied to the detenu who, therefore, knew as to what was the basis on which the detaining authority formed a subjective satisfaction leading to the passing of the detention order, and as such, it cannot be said that he was unable to make an effective representation and thereby, his valuable constitutional right was affected. Learned counsel was also not able to point out as to what was the prejudice, if any, caused to the detenu by not being supplied with the Oriya translation of the injury reports. 5. The order of detention has been passed on the basis of incident which led to filing of Malgodown P.S. Case Nos. 136 and 138 of 16.11.2000. The grounds of detention reveal that on 15.11.2000 at about 11.30 A.M., one of the supporters of the detenu, namely, Chaga alias Bibekananda Sahu had misbehaved the daughter of one Chartwalla (Sura) of Telisahi, P.S. Malgodown which behaviour was objected to by one Tanua Patra. This annoyed the detenu and his associates. Accordingly, the next day at about 8.15 A.M. while the said Tanua Patra was waiting for a bath near the Sulabha Sauchalaya at C.D.A. Market complex, College Square, the detenu and his associates, who were armed with deadly weapons, reached there, surrounded said Tanua Patra and asked him to sort out the matter. One of the associates of the detenu, namely, Babu, threw chilly powder at said Tanua Patra and when he tried to run way in order to save himself, he was chased 'and fired upon on a public road in a busy area of the town. The detenu and his assocites were running on the public street with weapons thereby causing a chaotic situation because of which the public were panic-stricken and started running away, the traffic also came to a stand still and the shops that were open also started closing down. Thus, there was a chaotic situation which was brought about in a public place disturbing the peace and tranquillity. Thus, there was a chaotic situation which was brought about in a public place disturbing the peace and tranquillity. At about 11 A.M. of the same day, the detenu a long with his associates forcibly took away one Batua alias Trinath Das from the Ice Factory Chhak to the U.P. School Campus, terrorized him at the point of a revolver and inflicted injuries on his right hand with razor blade and forced/compelled him to lodge a report with the police that Tanua Patra had inflicted injuries on him. It is, therefore, no doubt true that the incident in question leading to P. S. Case No. 136 of 16.11.2000 was directed against one individual but what is relevant and to be considered for the purpose of detention is, the effect of the incident and the matter is to be examined in this light. 6. From what has been referred to above, it cannot be denied that a person who had objected to the misbehaviour with a girl, was chased on a public road and fired upon. Use of fire-arm on a public road, though the gun-shot was directed against a particular individual, is bound to create terror and panic in the area in question and disturb the even tempo of life in the community of that area. Naturally, when people in the area see a person being chased and fired upon by armed persons, they are bound to be panic-stricken and run to save their lives for the fear of they being caught in the fray. It has also come on record that people had, in fact, started running away from the area and the businessmen had also started to pull down the shutters. In view of the above facts and after giving our anxious consideration, we are not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the incident in question did not affect "public order", and instead, we are satisfied that it did. 7. The grounds of detention indicate that the detaining authority was conscious of the fact that the detenu was in jail custody since 28.1.2001 and that he had also moved an application for being enlarged on bail before the S.D.J.M., Sadar, Cuttack. 7. The grounds of detention indicate that the detaining authority was conscious of the fact that the detenu was in jail custody since 28.1.2001 and that he had also moved an application for being enlarged on bail before the S.D.J.M., Sadar, Cuttack. The grounds also record that the detaining authority had taken note of the fact that once enlarged on bail, there was every likelihood that the detenu would indulge in further anti-social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, therefore, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was necessary to pass an order of detention against him. Thus, it cannot be said that the detaining authority had overlooked this relevant aspect and in this view of the matter, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the Apex Court in Amritlat and ors. v. Union Government and ors., (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 341, is misplaced. However, the matter does not end there because of the specific averment that the bail application filled by the detenu had been dismissed and as such, there was no likelihood of his being enlarged on bail by the S.D.J.M., Sadar, Cuttack. In this respect, reference may be made to paragraph 11 of the writ application which reads thus : "11. That on the date on which the order was passed the detenu is already is custody on judicial remand. Before the order of detention was passed the bail application of the detenu was rejected. Therefore apprehension hat he is likely to release on bail and indulged himself antisocial activities is totally based upon no cogent materials." This specific averment that the bail application of the detenu had been rejected had neither been referred to nor has been controverted by the detaining authority, as is clear from paragraph 13 of its affidavit which, in reply to paragraph 11 of the writ application, reads thus : "13. That in reply to the averments made in paragraph 11 of the writ application, it is submitted that the detenu is a die-hard anti-social. The peace loving people had a sense of insecurity when the detenu was at large. That in reply to the averments made in paragraph 11 of the writ application, it is submitted that the detenu is a die-hard anti-social. The peace loving people had a sense of insecurity when the detenu was at large. Being a die-hard anti-social, he acts on his own will ignoring the law of the land and general public do not drew to resist him in any was apprehending danger to their life and property. Inspite of being arrested and foP.Warded in custody in several criminal case, the anti-social activities of the detenu have continued unabated and each time he is released on Court bail, he commits further offences and creates havoc in different areas disturbing and jeopardising peace and public order of localities. Hence to curb down his anti-social activities and to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, once enlarged on bail in any criminal case, the detention order was passed." 8. From the above, it is clear that there has been a non-application of mind of the detaining authority with respect to his satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail and in order to prevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was necessary to detain him. The detaining authority was obviously not aware of the fact and this, we say, because the necessary averments have not been controverted, that the bail application had been rejected by the S.D.J.M. though he was conscious of the fact, as it appears from the grounds of detention that the detenu had applied to the S.D.J.M. for bail. When the application had been rejected, where was the occasion of the detenu being released at that stage. Thus, the apprehension of the detaining authority that there was a likelihood of the detenu being released on bail by the S.D.J.M., was misplaced/ unfounded. It, therefore, follows that the satisfaction of the detaining authority that the detenu was likely to be released by the S.D.J.M. and on being released, would indulge in activities disturbing public order was mechanical and misconceived and discloses non-application of mind. 9. The order is also assailed on the ground of delay in passing the order of detention as the criminal activity involving the detenu was on 16.11.2000 while the order of detention was passed on 4.3.2001. 9. The order is also assailed on the ground of delay in passing the order of detention as the criminal activity involving the detenu was on 16.11.2000 while the order of detention was passed on 4.3.2001. The ground of delay has been raised in paragraph 10 of the writ application which reads thus : "10. That the last incident was on 16.11.2000. The order of detention was passed on dt. 12.1.2000. Nearly four months after the incident. Therefore it would show that those period detenu has not committed any overtact in that period. Therefore the delay in passing the detention has no basis and subjective of satisfaction of District Magistrate is based upon no materials." (It may be mentioned that the date of order of detention has wrongly been indicated in the petition as 12.1.2000 instead of 4.3.2001.) 10. The reply to paragraph 10 of the writ application has been given in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit of opposite, party No. 2 which reads thus : "12. That with regards to the averments made in paragraph-10 of the writ application, the deponent begs to submit that the last incident was reported on 16.11.2000 and the detention order was passed on 4.3.2000, after the arrest of the detenu and while he was in jail custody. Soon after the occurrence, the detenu absconded to the evade police arrest. Police took persistent efforts to arrest the detenu, for which he did not get scope to exhibit his prejudicial activities." Thus from the above, it is clear that except the averment that the detenu was absconding, no explanation whatsoever has been given for explaining the delay in passing the order of detention. 11. In the above circumstances, what is to be considered is the effect of delay in passing the order of detention. It is no doubt true that in Rajendrakumar Natvarlal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, It has been observed that even in the absence of an explanation of delay the inference coufd not be drawn that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority was not genuine or that the grounds were stale or illusory. But, Smt. Hemlata Kantilal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, It has been observed that even in the absence of an explanation of delay the inference coufd not be drawn that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority was not genuine or that the grounds were stale or illusory. But, Smt. Hemlata Kantilal Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, it has been observed that "delay ipso facto in passing an order of detention after an incident is not fatal to the detention of a person, for in certain cases delay may be unavoidable and reasonable. What is required by law is that the delay must be satisfactorily explained by the detaining authority." 12. Pradeep Nikanth Paturkar Vs. S. Ramamurthi and others, one of the grounds of challenge was that there was delay in passing the order of the detention which had not been explained though a specific plea to that effect was raised. On a consideration of the matter, while quashing the order of detention, the Apex Court in paragraph 14 of the judgment observed thus : "14. Under the above circumstances, taking into consideration of the unexplained delay whether short or long especially when the appellant has taken a specific plea of delay, we are constrained to quash the detention order. Accordingly we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and quash the impugned detention order. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith." The aforesaid decision squarely applies to the facts of the case in as much as though a challenge has been made on the ground of delay in passing the order of detention, the detaining authority did not think it proper to give any explanation, much less satisfactory explanation for such delay. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has to be accepted. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ application is allowed, the order of detention dated 4.3.2001 (Annexure-1) is quashed. Consequently, the order of approval dated 12.3.2001 (Annexture - 3) and the order of confirmation dated 16.4.2001 (Annexure-4) are also quashed and the continued detention of the detenu is held to be unwarranted. The detenu be released forthwith if his detention is not required is connection with any other matter. C.R. Pal, J. 14. I agree. 15. Writ Application allowed. Final Result : Allowed