JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mukteshwar Prasad, J.—The petitioner, through the present writ petition, has challenged his detention order dated 22.9.2006 (Annexure-1) passed under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as N.S.A.) by District Magistrate, Aligarh (Respondent No. 3). 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was detained under Section 3 (2) of the N.S.A. in District Jail, Aligarh on 22.9.2006 and grounds of detention were also served on him on the same day. The grounds of detention have been disclosed in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. According to grounds of detention, on 5.4.2006 a “Havan" was going on in Dahiwali Gali, Aligarh Town. After sometime, Phurkan and other members of the Muslim community arrived there and asserted that they had obtained stay order from the Court in the year 1998 and claimed that the land belonged to the Mosque. The petitioner, Raju Chaatwala and other Hindus raised objections and slogans that they would construct a temple also. When Phurkan arrived near the Havan Kund with Chappal in his legs, exchange of hot words took place and the petitioner delivered fiery and provocative speeches and slogans. The petitioner and others resorted to brick batting. Consequently, the Police had to use force with a view to maintain public order. A large number of Police personnel sustained injuries and a case was registered at Police Station Kotwali at case crime No. 68 of 2006. 3. Next day i.e. on 6.4.2006, a procession led by the petitioner was going to Police Station Kotwali to lodge a report regarding damage to the shopkeepers of Sarrafa Bazar. When the petitioner and others saw the Muslims at Mohammad Ali Road, they raised slogans. The members of both communities raised slogans. On the same day, the entire public order of Aligarh Town was disturbed. Incidents of firing, dacoity, robbery and communal riots took place in several areas and cases were registered at Police Station Delhi Gate and Shashni Gate. In order to maintain peace and control the situation, curfew was clamped which remained effective up to 17.4.2006. 4. On 19.5.2006 at about 8.00 p.m., Raju @ Rajendra Gupta was attacked upon by three persons and he was seriously injured. A report was lodged by his father. On 23.5.2006 at about 2.45 a.m., Raju expired. In order to maintain peace and control the situation, curfew was clamped which remained effective up to 17.4.2006. 4. On 19.5.2006 at about 8.00 p.m., Raju @ Rajendra Gupta was attacked upon by three persons and he was seriously injured. A report was lodged by his father. On 23.5.2006 at about 2.45 a.m., Raju expired. Again on 23.5.2006, the petitioner and his son Satya Prakash and others reached Mohallah Hazira and instigated Hindus against Muslims and made an attempt to create communal hatred. The petitioner and his son distributed 200 sachets of country made liquor among Balmikis. On 28.5.2006 at 8-00 P.M., O.P. Lala, a businessman, was shot dead and a case was registered at crime No. 253 of 2006 at Police Station Delhi Gate. Again after death of O.P. Lala, riots took place and after disturbance of public order, curfew was clamped. The Police came to know that the petitioner was a candidate for the post of Mayor. He, therefore, instigated Hindus to have their votes. The S.H.O., P.S. Kotwali Nagar submitted a report to S.S.P., Aligarh on 22.9.2006 requesting for the detention of the petitioner under National Security Act with a view to prevent him from indulging in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On the same day, CO. City approved the proposal of the S.H.O. and sent his report to S.P. City who in turn recommended for detaining the petitioner under N.S.A. on the same day. Detaining authority passed the impugned order of detention on the same day as mentioned above. Counter and rejoinder affidavit between the parties have been exchanged and learned Counsel for the respective parties have no objection for final disposal of the petition. 5. We have heard S/Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, Senior Advocate and B.N. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri C.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arvind Tripathi, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and Sri Arun Prakash, learned Counsel for Union of India at length. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged with vehemence that the petitioner is admittedly an old man aged about 70 years. He is active in politics since 1952 and was elected as a Member of U.P. Assembly thrice in the years 1989, 1991 and 1993. He belongs to a very good family and has a good reputation in his district. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged with vehemence that the petitioner is admittedly an old man aged about 70 years. He is active in politics since 1952 and was elected as a Member of U.P. Assembly thrice in the years 1989, 1991 and 1993. He belongs to a very good family and has a good reputation in his district. According to petitioner’s learned Counsel, the grounds of detention served on the petitioner are quite vague and contained irrelevant materials. In fact, no material was placed before the detaining authority for his subjective satisfaction and the entire case was cooked up and fabricated by the S.H.O., Kotwali Nagar, CO. City, S.P. City and S.S.P., Aligarh on one and same day i.e. 22.9.2006. 6. It is strange that Police officers were all there and had virtually no work on 22.9.2006 who prepared and fabricated a false report against the petitioner and on the same day, the District Magistrate also passed the impugned order of detention without applying his mind and satisfying himself that material was sufficient or not to pass an order of detention as provided under Section 3 (2) of the N.S.A. It was strenuously contended that all grounds of detention were fabricated and cooked up by the local Police at the behest of Ruling Party. Since the petitioner has been a Member of the U.P. Assembly and belonged to Bhartiya Janta Party, he was illegally detained and impugned detention order was passed. He was not named in all the FIRs. Lastly, it was submitted that as per grounds of detention, disturbances started in Aligarh Town on 5.4.2006 and the petitioner was named and was wanted in several cases registered at various Police Stations of Aligarh Town. However, he was arrested by the local Police on 21.9.2006 and was lodged in Jail. Since election of the local bodies was notified on 21.9.2006 and the petitioner had decided to contest the election for the post of Mayor of Nagar Nigam, Aligarh, he was arrested by the Police on 21.9.2006 and was sent to Jail in crime No. 197 of 2006. It was further submitted that on the date of arrest of the petitioner i.e. 21.9.2006, there was no communal riots in the town and curfew had not been clamped. In fact, there was no break down of the public order. It was further submitted that on the date of arrest of the petitioner i.e. 21.9.2006, there was no communal riots in the town and curfew had not been clamped. In fact, there was no break down of the public order. Reliance was placed by the petitioner’s learned Counsel on the following decisions : 1. Shafiq Ahmad v. District Magistrate, Meerut and others, 1989 (4) SCC 556 . 2. Ramesh Kumar Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (55) ACC 186 : 2006(4) ADJ 228 . 3. Santosh Kumar Upadhyay v. District Magistrate, Gonda and others, 2006 (54) ACC 904. 4. Madhu Garg v. Union of India and another, 2004 (6) Supreme 669 . 7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the sufficiency of the material available to the detaining authority is not to be examined by this Court and is not for this Court to go into and assess the probative value of the evidence available to the detaining authority. There was clearly sufficient material before the District Magistrate to justify to form his opinion. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention that the grounds mentioned for the detention were non-existent. According to him, the incidence continued from April, 2006 to September, 2006 and normalcy was not restored in the town. Consequently, the sponsoring authority had proposed and recommended to the District Magistrate to take action against the petitioner under National Security Act and the petition is liable to be dismissed. He has placed reliance on the following decisions : 1. U. Vijayalakshmi (Mrs) v. State of T.N. and another, 1995 SCC (Cri) 176. 2. Ram Sukrya Mhatre v. R.D. Tyagi and others, 1992 SC (Cri) 960. 3. Chandresh Paswan (Detenu) v. State of U.P. and others, 1999 (38) ACC 721. 4. Rajendra Kumar Natvarlal Shah v. State of Gujarat and others, 1988 SCC (Cri) 575. 5. Ahmad Nassar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2000 (40) ACC 53 (SC). 6. Raisuddin alias Babu Tamchi v. State of U.P. and another, AIR 1984 SC 46 . 7. Bhanu Sharan v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Naini, Allahabad and others, 2002 (45) ACC 599. 8. Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal and others, AIR 1974 SC 2154 . 9. Alijan Mian v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad and others, AIR 1983 SC 1130 . 10. Mrs. 7. Bhanu Sharan v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Naini, Allahabad and others, 2002 (45) ACC 599. 8. Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal and others, AIR 1974 SC 2154 . 9. Alijan Mian v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad and others, AIR 1983 SC 1130 . 10. Mrs. Harpreet Kaur Harvinder Singh Bedi v. State of Maharashtra and another, AIR 1992 SC 979 . 11. Akshoy Konai v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1973 SC 300 . 12. Smt. K. Aruna Kumari v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1988 SCC (Cri) 116. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the record also carefully. In our opinion, the order of detention challenged in this petition is liable to be quashed and the petitioner deserves to be released forthwith. According to detaining authority and the grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner in District Jail, Aligarh, the alleged disturbance in the sensitive town of Aligarh of the State started w.e.f. 5th April, 2006 and continued up to 19.9.2006 when the petitioner was found delivering fiery speeches instigating members of Hindu community that on 23.9.2006 construction of a temple would start and Havan etc. would also be performed at a tree standing near Bhojpura Crossing. As a result of the speech delivered by the petitioner, Muslims assembled there and atmosphere became tense and there was every likelihood of communal tension in the area. On 20.9.2006, S.I. Phool Singh, I.O. of the case, is said to have recorded the statement of the petitioner and he was arrested on 21.9.2006 and sent to Jail. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that there were no communal riots or tension or any disturbance and no break down of the public order in the town in the month of September, 2006. Moreover, neither any declaration under Section 144, Cr.P.C. was made nor curfew was clamped in the city in the month of September, 2006. However, the detaining authority was satisfied that the conduct of the petitioner was such which was prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. He drew our attention that the alleged disturbances began in the month of April, 2006 and may be taken to have continued up to July, 2006. However, the detaining authority was satisfied that the conduct of the petitioner was such which was prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. He drew our attention that the alleged disturbances began in the month of April, 2006 and may be taken to have continued up to July, 2006. No specific incident is said to have taken place in the town in the month of August or in the month of September, 2006. Therefore, there was no question of passing the order of detention on 22.9.2006 i.e. after about three months from July, 2006 and there was inordinate delay in issuing the order impugned in this petition. 9. Reliance was placed on a decision of Lucknow Bench of this Court in Santosh Kumar Upadhyay v. District Magistrate, Gonda and others (supra) wherein the Court held that when an act was not found and considered to be prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order then there was no justification for passing the order of detention after expiry of two and half months. In the case in hand the disturbances started in the months of April and May. Two persons Raju Chatwala and O.P. Lala were allegedly murdered in the course of riots. Consequently, curfew was imposed which continued up to 17.4.2006. Again the authorities promulgated curfew after murder of O.P. Lala. There was nothing on record to show nor in the Counter-affidavit of the detaining authority that curfew had to be imposed in the city in the month of August or in the month of September, 2006 also. In this view of the matter, we are clearly of the opinion that inordinate delay took place in passing the impugned order by the detaining authority and there was no justification at all for passing the impugned order on 22.9.2006 against the petitioner. This stand is fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. K. Aruna Kumari v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others (supra) and a decision of the Lucknow Bench of this Court in S.K. Upadhyay v. District Magistrate, Gonda and others (supra). 10. It was next urged with vehemence that the order in question was malafide and was passed by the detaining authority at the instance of the Ruling Party. 10. It was next urged with vehemence that the order in question was malafide and was passed by the detaining authority at the instance of the Ruling Party. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that S.H.O. gave his report and proposed to detain the petitioner under the provision of National Security Act on 22.9.2006 and submitted a detailed report to the officers. On the same day, CO. and S.P. City agreeing with the proposal recommended to the detaining authority for passing the detention order and on the same day S.S.P. also agreed with the proposal of the sub-ordinates and requested the District Magistrate to pass an order of detention under Section 3 (2) of the N.S.A. We find that this contention of the petitioner’s learned Counsel is also well founded. It appears that the entire district administration and the Police personnel had no other work on 22.9.2006 except to take action against the petitioner and to prepare the papers for detention. It appears that every thing was done and all papers were prepared in hot haste and that is why CO. and S.P. City forgot to put the date also under their signatures. In this view of the matter, we are unable to accept the submissions made by the learned A.G.A. In view of what has been said and discussed above, we are clearly of the opinion that order of detention impugned in this petition passed by the detaining authority is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and continued detention of the petitioner is rendered bad in law. The petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith and set at liberty provided he is not required to be detained in any other case. ————