ORDER P. K. MISRA, J. Heard R. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, S.P. Samuel Raj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and B. Rajendran, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for Respondent No.3. 2. The order of preventive detention passed under the National Security Act, 1980, (in short “the Act”) by the Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City, is in question. The said order of detention was passed on 28.3.2007. Subsequently, it was approved by the State Government and, ultimately, after consideration of the matter by the Advisory Board, such detention order has been confirmed. 3. The relevant extract from the detention order reads as follows: “Whereas, I, ….., am satisfied that Arulseelan, ….., is found in activities posing threat to the National Security and prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order and the relationship of India with Sri Lanka. The details of which are set out in detail in the grounds of detention. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (Central Act 65 of 1980) read with the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 73 Public (Law and Order-F) Department dated 11th January 2007 under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act, I hereby direct that the said, Arulseelan, Male, aged 31/2007 Son of Rathinasingam, Oorkavuthurai, Jaffna, Srilanka, now residing at 53, Vanchinathan Nagar, Dheeran Nagar, Tiruchirappalli now remand prisoner in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, be detained at the Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.” [emphasis supplied] 4. In the grounds of detention, reference has been made to the following facts: The detenu was found in a suspicious manner and a sum of Rs.10 lakhs was recovered. The detenu could not account for possession of such amount, nor he could account for his presence at the place in the early morning and also he failed to produce valid travel document. Thereafter he was arrested and his confession was recorded. In the confession, he stated that one Ragulan @ Antony, a known LTTE Cadre, procuring and smuggling explosive materials and other essential commodities from the soil of India to Srilanka, had given him the money with an instruction to hand over the same to a person in Madurai for procuring iron balls (for being used in making of explosives and bombs). The detenu further confessed that he had already given Rs.10 lakhs on a previous occasion to a person in Madurai as instructed by Ragulan @ Antony to procure iron balls for LTTE, though he was aware that the organization was banned in India. Subsequently, a case has been registered in Crime No.1/2007 under Sections 102 Cr.P.C., 120(B) I.P.C., 10, 13(1)(2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 14 of Foreigners Act. Thereafter the accused, after being produced, has been remanded by the Magistrate. The other recitals in the grounds of detention indicate the procurement of iron balls, stocking of such materials in some places and sending those materials to Sri Lanka. On the basis of these facts, the detaining authority has concluded : “9. Hence, I am satisfied from the materials placed before me in the above case that the accused Arulseelan has knowingly helped the LTTE, a banned organization in India for procuring materials and smuggling them to Srilanka clandestinely and thereby he acted in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State, the relations of India with foreign country and maintenance of public order. 10. Investigation reveals that the iron balls seized from the accused in this case are used for making bombs by the LTTE, Illicit transportation of such materials and possession in the hands of such anti-national elements will really pose threat to the security of the State and also the maintenance of public order.” 5. One of the main contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that the order of detention which has been passed by the Commissioner of Police and the grounds of detention clearly indicate as if the detention is with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the National Security and the relationship of India with a foreign country. It is submitted by the counsel that such power is only available to be exercised by the Central Government or the State Government and not by the Commissioner of Police, as the Commissioner of Police has got only the delegated authority and vested with the power to deal with matters coming within the scope of Section 3(2) of the Act and not coming within Section 3(1) of the Act. 6. The relevant provisions contained in Section 3, being necessary, are extracted hereunder. “3. 6. The relevant provisions contained in Section 3, being necessary, are extracted hereunder. “3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons.- (1)The Central Government or the State Government may,- (a) if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India, the relations of India with foreign powers, or the security of India, or (b) if satisfied with respect to any foreigner that with a view to regulating his continued presence in India or with a view to making arrangements for his expulsion from India, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. (2) The Central Government or the State Government may if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. (3) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may, by order in writing, direct, that during such period as may be specified in the order, such District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (2), exercise the powers conferred by the said sub-section. 7. We have already extracted the order of detention. The detention order clearly indicates that the detaining authority is satisfied that the detenu was found indulging in activities posing threat to the National Security and prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the relationship of India with Sri Lanka. Therefore, a mere perusal of the aforesaid detention order indicates that the detaining authority has found it necessary to detain the detenu with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the National Security and also prejudicial to the relationship of India with Sri Lanka. 8. Therefore, a mere perusal of the aforesaid detention order indicates that the detaining authority has found it necessary to detain the detenu with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the National Security and also prejudicial to the relationship of India with Sri Lanka. 8. Those matters can only be dealt with under Section 3(1) of the Act and such power can be exercised either by the Central Government or by the State Government. There is no provision under Section 3(3) under which power under Section 3(1) can be delegated to subordinate officers of the State Government, namely District Magistrates or the Commissioners of Police, as the case may be. 9. Faced with the aforesaid situation, the counsels for the State Government and the Central Government have tried to defend the order of detention by contending that it was also passed with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The question is whether mere incantation of such magic words in the order of detention would indicate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority to the materials relevant for the subject. 10. The detaining authority has clearly and mainly relied upon the confession statement of the accused. Even the grounds of detention clearly indicate that the detenu was helping in procuring materials, supplying such materials to LTTE Organization which is a banned organization in India, and sending those materials to Sri Lanka. There is no allegation anywhere that the detenu was at all involved in preparation of any bomb or any contraband explosives within India. The entire allegation seems to be that he was illegally and clandestinely smuggling those materials to Sri Lanka. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that such an action of a person, who is trying to smuggle materials to Sri Lanks, is likely to affect or prejudice the maintenance of public order. The very fact that the detaining authority has chosen to pass the order of detention on the ground that the acts of the detenu were detrimental to the National Security and detrimental to the relationship of India with Sri Lanka will go to show that the detaining authority was not at all aware of the scope of the authority delegated by the State Government to him. The same, according to our view, will be a vitiating factor. 11. In this context, it is relevant to quote a Division Bench decision of this Court in Thangavadivel v. Government of Tamil Nadu 1992 L.W.(Crl.) 43. In the said case, the allegation against the detenus were that they were engaged in smuggling out essential commodities like diesel, petrol, engine oil, cloth, chillies and other materials clandestinely to Sri Lanka and based on those allegations they were detained under Section 3(3) read with Section 3(2) of the National Security Act with a view to preventing them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It was contended that there was non-application of mind. 12. Upholding the above contention of the counsel for the detenus, the Division Bench had held as follows: “The order of detention shows that the impugned order of detention were clamped, with a view to preventing the detenus from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention when considered in detail, do not prima facie indicate any nexus to activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.” 13. In the present case, though such materials, after being taken to Sri Lanka, may be used for preparation of bombs or explosives by the Organization, namely LTTE. In fact, a careful reading of the grounds of detention along with the detention order clearly indicate that the detaining authority was very much obsessed by the fact that the illegal activities of the detenu were likely to pose threat to National Security and also likely to affect relationship of India with Sri Lanka. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the order of detention cannot be sustained. 14. In view of the above conclusion, it is not necessary to consider the other contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention in CPO/TC/IS/NSA/D.O.No.1/2007, dated 28.3.2007, passed by the second respondent is quashed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. Petition allowed.