S. K. AGARWAL, J. Both these petitioners have filed the aforementioned writ petitions before this Court against their detention under Section 3 (2) of National Security Act, dated 22- 12-2001. 2. The brief facts of the case, as disclosed from the grounds of detention, are that on 30-10-2001 at about 9. 50 p. m. a report was lodged by one Manish Awasthi of Kanpur Nagar at P. S. Nazirabad that his brother Chakresh Awasthi had obtained a Mukhtarnama in his favour from Amul Hitkari, owner of House No. 111/443, Ashok Nagar. The house was purchased by him from the aforesaid owner. Its possession too was given to him. These two petitioners, who are brothers, wanted to take forcible possession of the said house. Their attempt was desisted by deceased Chakresh Awasthi. On the abovesaid date in the evening at about 7. 00 p. m. when Chakesh Awasthi and his friend Ashu Nigam were engaged in conversation on the first floor of the said house while Ashus brother Amit and Rewant Mishra were standing outside in the verandah and engaged in some conversation there in the electric light burning at that time Ashok Singh alias Gappu Bhadoria, the petitioner in H. C. Writ Petition No. 12986 of 2002 and his brother Arun Kumar Singh alias Raje Bhadoria, the petitioner in H. C. Writ Petition No. 12983 of 2002, Ajit Singh alias Guddan Bhadoria and his servant Baua Pandey armed with rifle, gun, pistol and revolver arrived here. They challenged his brother Chakresh Awasthi and told that they will teach him a lesson for purchasing the house. All the four opened fire upon Chakresh Awasthi. The witnesses raised an alarm, which attracted to the scene of occurrence the residents of the locality but due to indiscriminate firing by the abovesaid assailants including these petitioners, the witnesses went helter-skelter. His brother suffered serious injuries as a consequence of the abovesaid firing. Ashu Nigum also suffered injuries. This was not the end, the scenario extended further. In order to cause panic in the whole area these persons fired indiscriminately in air to cause further panic. It resulted into instant closure of the shops and the shop-keepers started vanished from the spot. The traffic on the roads was disrupted. People on road ran for cover to save themselves from any physical harm. In order to cause panic in the whole area these persons fired indiscriminately in air to cause further panic. It resulted into instant closure of the shops and the shop-keepers started vanished from the spot. The traffic on the roads was disrupted. People on road ran for cover to save themselves from any physical harm. The assailants, believing the two, Chakresh Awasthi and Ashu Nigam, dead, retreated at leisure from the spot. A report was registered on the basis of the abovesaid information at P. S. Nazirabad vide Crime No. 195 of 2001 under Sections 302/307/34 I. P. C. against the two petitioners and their two companions. The news was widely published by various leading local newspapers. Editorials splashed their anguish on the loss of control on crimes and lamented about the tragedy. True copies of the reports published in daily newspapers dainik Jagaran and aaj dated 31-10-2001 were provided along with the grounds as Annexures 4 & 5 to these petitioners. 3. The Station House Officer, P. S. Nazirabad, had to call additional force for reinforcement of the law and order in the area. He sent emergency message on R. T. Set for the purpose. Entry about this call for additional force was made on G. D. No. 39 at 10. 20 p. m. on 30-10-2001 in the abovesaid police station. Police force from different police stations were sent for deployment in the area around 10. 35 p. m. vide G. D. No. 40 of the same police station. The entry about deployment of the additional force was mentioned in G. D. No. 44 at 10. 30 p. m. on 31-10-2001. All these G. D. entries were appended as Annexures 6, 7 and 8 to the grounds of detention provided to the petitioners. Annexure 9 is the deployment chart of the additional force in the area for the proper and effective maintenance of law and order. 4. The grounds of detention further makes a reference to the letter No. LIU/kanpur-Misc. /2001 dated 31-10-2001 about registration of the said case and its facts. This letter also stated about the feeling of insecurity that visited the local residents of the area after this incident and the extent of damage inflicted to public tranquillity by this daredevilry of the petitioners and their cohorts. /2001 dated 31-10-2001 about registration of the said case and its facts. This letter also stated about the feeling of insecurity that visited the local residents of the area after this incident and the extent of damage inflicted to public tranquillity by this daredevilry of the petitioners and their cohorts. He has also requested in this letter submitted to S. S. P. , Kanpur Nagar, that proper arrangement for the maintenance of public order be made promptly. This report is Annexure 10 to the grounds of detention and supplied to the petitioners. 5. The offence was investigated by S. H. O. , P. S. Nazirabad. He recorded the statements of Manish Awasthi, Rewant Mishra and Amit Nigam, the eye-witnesses, under Section 161 Cr. P. C. These statements were supplied with the grounds of detention as Annexures 11 & 12. The charge-sheet submitted by the police against the said four accused persons was given to them Annexure 13 to the grounds. It was further stated that the trial is pending in a Court of law. 6. Ground No. 2 refers to the arrests of Gappu Bhadoria and Guddan. The arrests of the petitioner Ashok Singh alias Gappu Bhadoria and Anit Singh alias Guddan Bhadoria, sons of Betal Singh, were effected at 10. 15 a. m. on 4-11-2001 after disclosing reasons for the same to them. The petitioner Ashok Singh disclosed to the Investigating Officer that he used the licensed gun of Amit in the incident. Ajit Singh alias Guddan Bhadoria also acknowledged use of his licensed rifle in the incident before the Investigating Officer. He also admitted that his brother Ashok Singh, Arun Singh and Baua participated in the incident that occurred on 30-10-2001 in Mohalla Ashok Nagar. He also disclosed that Babu Pandey was possessing pistol of. 315 bore. The recovery of a double barrel gun on his pointing out from House No. 103 MIG Barra-5 was effected. In connection with this recovery an offence vide Crime No. 851 of 2001 under Sections 25/27 Arms Act was also registered at P. S. Naubasta. Copy of the F. I. R. of the Arms Act case was supplied as Annexure 14 to the grounds of detention. The offence was under investigation. It is further alleged therein that in the vicinity, where this double murder incident occurred, there are markets, dense population, main roads and bye lanes. Copy of the F. I. R. of the Arms Act case was supplied as Annexure 14 to the grounds of detention. The offence was under investigation. It is further alleged therein that in the vicinity, where this double murder incident occurred, there are markets, dense population, main roads and bye lanes. Traffic flow here was round the clock. The firing resorted to by them caused commotion in the traffic, shopkeepers downed their shutters and ran away. The residents of the locality bolted their doors and remained indoor. Public order in this manner was completely disturbed. Since Chakresh Awasthi was an office bearer (General Secretary) of D. A. V. College Union and was nominated President of the Chamanganj area of B. L. P. , his murder caused turbulence amongst the student community of the township. They came out on the street, pelted stones on vehicles, Government and private, and resorted to other unlawful activities in the township to express their anguish and anger. To prevent all these, further additional force was deployed around the colleges and schools of the district. During the funeral procession of Chakresh Awasthi the students pelted stones and damaged vehicles. The news about the repercussions was published in different newspapers of Kanpur City, such as dainik Jagaran, hindustan Times and amar Ujala. True copies of these publications were also supplied as Annexures 15, 16 and 17 with the grounds of detention to the petitioners. 7. It was further stated in the grounds of detention that these petitioners had moved applications for their bail in the Court. Copies of bail applications were provided to them as Annexures 19 and 20 with the grounds of detention. The detaining authority (District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar) in the grounds of detention, expressed an opinion that there is every likelihood of their release on bail and if they are released on bail there is every possibility or likelihood of their indulgence into similar criminal activities in future. 8. The petitioners were in jail from 5-11-2001 in the impugned case. The detention order was thus passed and served on them in this manner. 9. In the report of the sponsoring authority it is stated that the petitioner Ashok Singh alias Gappu Bhadoria was born in Kanpur Nagar in a middle class family. Efforts of his parents to educate him fell apart and he being an intemperate person could not complete his education. 9. In the report of the sponsoring authority it is stated that the petitioner Ashok Singh alias Gappu Bhadoria was born in Kanpur Nagar in a middle class family. Efforts of his parents to educate him fell apart and he being an intemperate person could not complete his education. He fell prey to the people of criminal antecedents and consequently due to their association started leading his own crime life. He started forcibly evicting the people from their houses and occupying them. Thus, in crux, the detention was based upon a solitary incident of double murder in a thickly populated area having markets and lanes and bye lanes. The detaining authority was satisfied that the activities of the petitioners dated 30- 10-2001 in the evening at 9. 50 p. m. completely disrupted the public order and the administration had to take serious measures to maintain the public order in the township. In essence, the charge is that the incident was committed to grab the house purchased by Chakresh Awasthi. This indicates their object. The petitioners took the law into their hands to accomplish it which caused the alleged disruption of public order. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged before us that the solitary incident of double murder did not give rise to disruption of public order. Instead he argued that it was a law and order problem which would have been dealt with by the administration according to the laws prevalent in the society for controlling such crimes. He further elaborated the submission by stating that it was a case to satiate personal vengeance. He intended to convey that in the circumstances adverted to above the incident, time, place and manner of the incident has no role to play in deciding whether any disturbance was caused by their activity to the public order of the township including the area wherein the incident occurred. It is further contended that neither in the F. I. R. of the case nor in the report of the sponsoring authority there was any mention of the fact that the petitioners wanted to grab the house. The language used in the F. I. R. is "makan KHARIDNE KA MAJA CHAKHATA HUN" (teach you a lesson for purchasing the house ). It indicated personal grudge simpliciter. They might have also their eyes on the impugned property. The language used in the F. I. R. is "makan KHARIDNE KA MAJA CHAKHATA HUN" (teach you a lesson for purchasing the house ). It indicated personal grudge simpliciter. They might have also their eyes on the impugned property. He further strengthened his submission by pointing out to the fact that in the wireless message the names of the assailants were not disclosed. They were mentioned as unknown. This document was withheld from the detaining authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance in this connection on a case reported in 2001 (43) ACC 408 (Suresh Chandra Katare v. State of U. P. and others ). 11. The next submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioners before us is that the Advisory Board did not consider their representation. The papers were sent to the Board on 29-12- 2001. The State Government took 49 days to submit the representation to the Board after their receipt. In this connection following cases were referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners: (1) A. I. R. 1975 S. C. 623 (Ram Bali Rajbhar v. The State of West Bengal & others), (2) 2000 (1) JIC 334 (All) : 2000 (40) A. C. C. 402 (Satya Priya Sonkar v. Adhikshak, Kendriya Karagar, Naini, Allahabad & others), (3) 2000 (41) A. C. C. 397 (Madan Bhaiya alias Madan Gopal v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi & others), (4) 1985 Cr. L. J. 999 (Rajendra Kumar Sharma v. Superintendent, District Jail, Agra and others ). Another case was also cited: (5) 1985 SCC (Crl) 421 (State of Rajasthan and another v. Shamsher Singh,) and (6) 1985 SCC (Crl.) 684 (Dipak Bose alias Naripada v. State of West Bengal ). It is further contended that it was a case of personal vengeance, the effect of it on the society, meaning thereby the public order is to be determined in this context. The charge-sheet was already submitted and the case was pending trial in a court of law before the impugned detention orders came into existence. 12. Learned A. G. A. in contrast pointed out that this was a case of house grabbing by the petitioners and in such a situation any personal acrimony or animosity does not have any bearing. The house was already purchased by deceased Chakresh Awasthi. His act in purchasing the house was a lawful act. 12. Learned A. G. A. in contrast pointed out that this was a case of house grabbing by the petitioners and in such a situation any personal acrimony or animosity does not have any bearing. The house was already purchased by deceased Chakresh Awasthi. His act in purchasing the house was a lawful act. There was every possibility of the repetition of the criminal act as is available from the report of the sponsoring authority. The incident occurred in densely populated locality, additional force was deployed to maintain the peace and order in the area and the township as well. Student unrest was controlled and marginalised by placing further additional force around the colleges and schools of the township in addition thereto. The deceased was a student leader of repute and his murder certainly caused commotion in a large section of the local student community. He belonged to a national political party. Regarding wireless message, his contention is that it would have been a relevant material. Its non- production might have influenced the mind of the detaining authority otherwise had it been there. Material produced before the detaining authority was sufficient and any relevance of non-production of the wireless message looses its significance. The purpose behind the wireless message is to keep informed higher authorities of the commission of heinous offence forthwith. On the point of representation, it is contended that the representation to the District Magistrate was submitted by these detenues on 28-12-2001 but it was never sent to the Government by the detaining authority. This detenu instead were informed by the detaining authority that since the matter was referred to the Government for confirmation under Section 10, therefore, he himself became functus officio. He required them to submit fresh representation to the State Government directly. The fact was stated in paragraph 19 in the counter affidavit by the detaining authority that their representations were rejected by him on 2-1-2002. It was not his obligation to forward the representations even if it was submitted after expiry of time to him. The Government received two representations from the detenu and from the contents of paragraphs 3 and 5 of the counter affidavit of the Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of U. P, these representations were submitted to the Advisory Board without any further delay. 13. The Government received two representations from the detenu and from the contents of paragraphs 3 and 5 of the counter affidavit of the Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of U. P, these representations were submitted to the Advisory Board without any further delay. 13. Learned A. G. A. invited our attention to the following cases: (1) 1988 S. C. C. (Crl.) 36 (Subhash Bhandari v. District Magistrate, Lucknow and others), (2) 1985 A. L. J. 1222 (Sheshdhar Misra v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Naini and others), and (3) 1990 SCC (Crl.) 348 (T. Devaki v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others ). These cases are inapplicable to the facts of the present case. These also cases were cited by learned counsel for the petitioners. He further referred to the following cases in support of his arguments: (1) A. I. R. 1974 S. C. 2149 (Kartik Chandra Guha v. State of West Bengal), (2) A. I. R. 1975 S. C. 730 (Kamal Pramanik v. The State of West Bengal), (3) 1996 (33) A. C. C. 741 (Vijai Pal alias Pappu v. Union of India and others), (4) 1988 S. C. C. (Crl.) 107 (II) (State of U. P. v. Kamal Kishore Saini), and (5) JT 1993 (3) S. C. 666 (Smt. Kamlabavi v. Commissioner of Police, Nagpur and othersd ). (6) A. I. R. 1992 S. C. 979 (Mrs. Harpreet Kaur Harvinder Singh Bedi v. State of Maharashtra and another ). 14. It is further asserted by him that there was no such wireless message, as alleged in Paragraph 23 of the petition. He further stated that the representation dated 5-1-2002 was considered by the Government and there were no new ground taken in the subsequent representations by the detenus. They all contained similar facts. One was sent on 28-12-2001 and the others on 29- 12-2001 and the last on 5-1-2002. 15. The representation dated 28-12-2001 was first submitted. No receipt was given to the detenu of this representation by the detaining authority and, therefore, the second representation was submitted. The detaining authority admits the submission of representation dated 28-12-2001 but alleges that it were rejected by him in the counter affidavits. It is contended further by learned counsel for the petitioners that no response is given by the detaining authority or by the Home Secretary about their representation dated 29-12-2001. The State Government received this representation on 15-1-2002. The detaining authority admits the submission of representation dated 28-12-2001 but alleges that it were rejected by him in the counter affidavits. It is contended further by learned counsel for the petitioners that no response is given by the detaining authority or by the Home Secretary about their representation dated 29-12-2001. The State Government received this representation on 15-1-2002. The Central Government received the same representation on 1-1-2002, i. e. within three days from its despatch by speed post. Representations to State Government were also in the said manner on the same date. Therefore, when they were sent by speed post it is unbelievable that the representation dated 29-12-2001 was received by the State Government on 15-1-2002 and Central Government on 1-1- 2002. The Government is taking a frivolous plea that it was received in the department but when, it is not at all made known. It is further alleged that the contents of all the three representations were different. Therefore, the claim by learned A. G. A. that they were similar is a wholly inaccurate statement and plea of similar in itself connote the inference that the term is used as a device to divert the Court. 16. We may now like to deal with the first submission whether criminal act and its consequences give rise to a law and order problem alone or it created public order problem. There is very thin difference between law and order and the public order. Commission of an offence basically relates to maintenance of law and order is an undisputed fact. When and in what circumstances it may become a public order problem depends upon the extent of its reach and potentiality. The heinous nature of the offence, manner of its execution and its impact upon the social life of the area or the township may be the guiding factor to assess this fact. Whether it had the potentiality to disturb the public tranquillity of the area or the township is to be assessed from the facts available from the grounds. In the grounds of detention we find clear mention of certain facts which have not been disputed before us. The newspaper reports and the G. D. entries expose the reach and the potentiality of the offence. All such papers were furnished to the detenus by the detaining authority along with grounds of detention. In the grounds of detention we find clear mention of certain facts which have not been disputed before us. The newspaper reports and the G. D. entries expose the reach and the potentiality of the offence. All such papers were furnished to the detenus by the detaining authority along with grounds of detention. These are G. D. Entry No. 39, 40 and 41 of P. S. Nazirabad. On its examination it is evident that a situation was created whereby necessity to deploy large force on two occasions to maintain public tranquillity of the area and the township on the request of the local police arose. There is evidence that on 31-10-2001 such force was deployed in the township. There is further evidence in the form of report of the Circle Officer to the Senior Superintendent of Police that proper arrangement for the maintenance of public order be made by superior authorities of the district promptly. As a consequence, additional force was deployed on 31-10-2001 in the town and the effected region where the incident occurred. There is evidence of disturbance caused to the public order during the funeral procession of deceased Chakresh Awasthi, former student leader of D. A. V. College and a local B. J. P. leader. Students hurled brick- bats upon the police force and caused damage to public property to give vent to their anger. Apart from it evidence of persistence of anger amongst the student community was further available from the grounds of detention, inasmuch as additional force was deployed to keep the colleges open and free from further disturbances. These are such facts which clearly indicate breach of public tranquillity in the township soon after the incident as a direct consequence of their crime. It exposes the reach and the potentiality of the offence so committed by the petitioners. Apart from it once we take into consideration the other facts connected with the offence, such as its commission in a densely populated area having main roads and the markets. Indiscriminate firing was made later on to create panic amongst the people residing in the area and the shopkeepers and to completely disrupt traffic. It is uncanny to say offence in itself was heinous. Indiscriminate firing was made later on to create panic amongst the people residing in the area and the shopkeepers and to completely disrupt traffic. It is uncanny to say offence in itself was heinous. The effect that it has created in the society immediately was psychosis of fear amongst the residents, shopkeepers and the members of the traffic, which used to be overflowing on the main roads. The people ran helter-skelter. Doors of the house were closed. People went indoors. The portent of the act undoubtedly was of a far-reaching nature for the public order. The intention behind the commission of offence is writ large. It was not simply to teach a lesson to the deceased Chakresh Awasthi for his purchase of the house ahead of them. It further shows that the petitioners had an eye over the house and probably Chakresh Awasthi successfully out-manoeuvred them. So the potentiality behind this offence created terror in the area. No one would dare to purchase any house now for their fear. When a person like Chakresh Awasthi fell prey to the bullets of these petitioners who else will muster courage to purchase any house on sale in the area. The motive, therefore, was so apparent that it undoubtedly helps in discerning the far reaching impact and the potentiality of the offence upon the public tranquillity. The circumstances discussed earlier were in addition to these facts and circumstances. When they are read cumulatively it leaves no room for doubt that the reach, the effect and the potentiality of their offence was very large and it had adversely affected public order. Even tempo of life of the town remained disturbed for some days. This clearly distance the act of the petitioners from law and order and brings it very close to the breach of public order and tranquillity. Therefore, it was not simply a case of breach of law and order but had undoubtedly caused serious damage to the public tranquillity of the township. There were disturbances for days. In the circumstances, the submission has no force and we reject the same. 17. The first representation was sent to the detaining authority on 28-12-2001 through the Superintendent Jail. It was received on the same day. The detaining authority informed the detenu that since he now become functus officio since he has forwarded already all the papers to the Government. In the circumstances, the submission has no force and we reject the same. 17. The first representation was sent to the detaining authority on 28-12-2001 through the Superintendent Jail. It was received on the same day. The detaining authority informed the detenu that since he now become functus officio since he has forwarded already all the papers to the Government. The detenu may send a fresh representation to the State Government directly. This has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the detaining authority in paragraph 19. He rejected the same on 2-1-2002. Though it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this was in improper rejection by the detaining authority. Even though he had already sent the papers he was still under an obligation to send their representations to the Government for consideration. We will not advert to this question here but we will deal with it later on. 18. The Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of U. P. , had stated in his counter affidavit that the two representations received from the detenu were sent to the Advisory Board without any delay. No violation of any provisions of the Act as such was committed by him. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the representation dated 29-12-2001 was not forwarded to the Advisory Board. What shall be the effect of the failure to do so that requires consideration. Learned A. G. A. pointed out that there is no averment to this effect in the petition. Hence the argument is not open to learned counsel for the petitioner and there is no violation of Article 22 (5) as such. The representation dated 5-1-2002 was submitted after the representation dated 29-12-2001 was sent. It is contended by learned A. G. A. that the representation dated 5-1-2002 was considered. There was no difference in the grounds in the representations dated 29-12-2001 and 5-1-2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that there is good difference between the two representations. The question whether there was difference or no difference is not relevant. If two sets of representations were submitted by the petitioners what was the obligation of the State accosts us. In the counter affidavit no averment is contained about the representation dated 29-12-2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that there is good difference between the two representations. The question whether there was difference or no difference is not relevant. If two sets of representations were submitted by the petitioners what was the obligation of the State accosts us. In the counter affidavit no averment is contained about the representation dated 29-12-2001. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the representation dated 29-12-2001 was never considered by the Government, though it claimed that this representation was received by the State Government on 15-1-2001. Similar representations were sent on this very date to the Central Government and the Central Government received the representation on 1-1-2002. Both the representations were sent on 29-12-2001 to the State Government and Central Government by speed post. He contends that this is surprising that the State Government is coming forward with a claim that it was received on 15-1-2002, whereas the representation in reaching to the Central Government at Delhi had taken only three days. It was received on 1-1-2002 there. It is next impossible that the representation submitted on 29-12-2002 to the State Government by speed post would have reached Lucknow on 15-1-2002. So far as the Secretary Homes counter affidavit is concerned, it did not disclose the exact date when it was received and by whom it was received in the department. 19. From the facts and circumstances available to us we find that there is a dilation of more than sufficient time of over two weeks in deciding the representation dated 29-12-2001. Mere statement that it was received in the department on 15-1-2002 is too vague a contention and it cannot be ipso facto accepted. Moreover, in our opinion, if there are two representations, both should have been considered and decided. There is no clear-cut case by the State Government as to which of the two representations dated 29-12-2001 and 5-1-2002 were considered and forwarded to the Advisory Board for consideration. On examination we find that there is difference between the representation dated 29-12- 2001 and 5-1-2002 in their contents. We also find that the detaining authority instead of forwarding the representations received on 28-12-2001 to the State Government had himself rejected them. This, in our opinion, was most improper on his part. The detaining authority is not functus officio at any point of time till the detention last. We also find that the detaining authority instead of forwarding the representations received on 28-12-2001 to the State Government had himself rejected them. This, in our opinion, was most improper on his part. The detaining authority is not functus officio at any point of time till the detention last. If he has forwarded the papers to the Government for confirmation in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the representation reaches him afterwards he is under an obligation to forward the same to the Government for its consideration but is improper on his part to reject the same himself. In our opinion, probably in order to overcome his failure to forward the same to the Government for decision the District Magistrate has taken this plea of their rejections. The rejection probably made on some later date on legal advice. The failure of the State Government to consider the representation dated 29-12-2001 or 5-1-2002 for more than 15 days is also without a proper and valid explanation. It causes serious failure of justice to the detenu, in our opinion. There is hardly any averment as to when the last representation received from the detenu was decided by the Government or the Advisory Board. When was it forwarded to the Advisory Board even is not clearly stated. 20. In the abovesaid facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that the detention of the petitioners cannot be sustained for this reason alone. Failure to consider the representations within the reasonable time by the Government or the Advisory Board causes serious infraction of the provisions of the said Act and thereby caused failure of justice so far as the petitioners are concerned. 21. In view of the above discussions, we allow these petitions and quash the detention order of the petitioners dated 22-12-2001. Petitions allowed. .