MR. V. DHANAPALAN, J. ORDER 1. The Order under challenge has been passed by the Commissioner of Police Coimbatore City, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub – section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (Central Act 65 of 1980) read with orders issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O. Ms. No: 741, Public (Law and Order. F) Department dated 19.07.2013 under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act, clamping the order of detention on the detenu and detaining him in the Central Prison – II, Puzhal, Chennai. 2. The grounds on which the aforesaid detention order has been made are that on 07.09.2013 at about 10.00 hours while the Sub Inspector of Police, ‘Q’ Branch Criminal Investigation Department, Coimbatore City, was on duty, the complainant G. Vivekanandan @ Anandan (34), S/o. Ganesan, of Sathyamangalam, Erode District, appeared and preferred a written complaint stating that, he is residing in the refugee camp from 2000; one Easwaran, who is also residing in the same camp, told him that he is arranging immigration of Sri Lankan Refugees to Australia with the help of Sivashankar @ Shankar of Rameshwaram, Srijeyan @ Jegan of Chennai, Veeramani of Madurai, Sathish of Rameshwaram Mandapam Refugee camp, Suresh of Ernakulam, Kerala and Kanna @ Balachandran, Subhakaran of Vedar Colony Refugee Camp; that the said Easwaran told the complainant that one or two lakhs of rupees are charged for each refugee; one lakh has to be paid in advance and the balance to be paid once they reach Australia; that on 10.04.2013 the complainant paid Rs. 1,35,000/- the said Sivashankar @ Shankar and Srijeyan @ Jegan; during May month they asked the complainant to come to Ooty for proceeding to Australia; that when the complainant went, there were 18 other refugees; all of them stayed there for three days and then sent home by the organizers; that the complainant and Others later met Sivashankar @ Shankar, Srijeyan @ Jegan, Veeramani, Kanna @ Balachandran and Subhakaran, many times and insisted them to repay the money, but they did not do so and hence, the complaint. 3. 3. Upon receipt of the said complaint, a case came to be registered in Crime No: 0-1/2013 for offences under Sections 120 (b) and 420 I.P.C. And Sec. 12 (1) (a) of Passport Act 1967 r/w Section 14 of Foreigners Act 1946 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Q Branch, Criminal Invetigation Department, Coimbatore City. The detenu was arrested on 07.09.2013 at 20.00 hours at Coimbatore. Pursuant to the arrest, the detenu gave a voluntary confession statement admitting his involvement in the cases registered against him. Based on the confession statement, a fake driving license and bank jewel loan receipts were seized. The detenu was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No: II, Coimbatore and remanded to judicial custody till 20.09.2013 and lodged in Central Prison, Coimbatore. The remand was further extended till 21.10.2013 and now he is a remand prisoner in Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai. 4. Thus on a careful consideration of the materials placed before him by the Sponsoring Authority, the detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu are prejudical to the maintenance of Public order and passed the impugned detention order. Challenging the said order, petitioner is before this Court. 5. Mr. M. Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised three grounds to assail the impugned order of detention. Firstly, he questioned the authority of the State Government in making such an order based on a reliable material information, particularly similar case consideration, viz. in Crl. M.P. No: 2433 of 2013 in which bail was granted and therefore, there is a real possibility that the detenu in this case also would be granted bail and if he comes out on bail, there are possibilities that he will indulge in such activities, which will be prejudicial to the security of the State and prejudicial to the public order. According to the learned counsel though the detaining authority has stated such a bail order granted in Crl. M.P. No; 2433 of 2013 is enclosed in the booklet, it has not been enclosed and thus, the detenu is denied an opportunity of making an effective representation, which is a Constitutional right guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. 6. M.P. No; 2433 of 2013 is enclosed in the booklet, it has not been enclosed and thus, the detenu is denied an opportunity of making an effective representation, which is a Constitutional right guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. 6. The second contention raised by the learned counsel is that as far as the collection of funds and the offence invoking Section 420 I.P.C. would not attract the term “Public Order” and therefore, in those cases, the power conferred upon the detaining authority under Sub Section 2 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 cannot be invoked. In support of the said contention, he relied on the decision reported in Darpan Kumar Sharma v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, AIR 2003 SC 971 : (2003) 2 SCC 313 and submits that the ratio laid down therein would make it clear that for offences invoking this nature, there cannot be a satisfaction arrived at to say that there is every likelihood of the detenu causing acts which would affect the maintenance of public order. 7. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised an interesting question of law viz. that the detaining authority has passed an order invoking the power vested upon him under Sub–Section 2 of Section 3 of the National Security Act and Government Order in G.O. Ms. No: 741, Public (Law and Order. F) Department dated 19.07.2013, in and by which the jurisdictional authority has been designated as the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police, which has been referred to in the detention order itself, was not made available to the detenu. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this is a vital information as otherwise, the detenu is deprived of the knowledge as to what is the jurisdictional power of the detaining authority to impose the detention of the detenu. 8. On the above points, we have heard Mr. Shanmugavelayudham, learned Public Prosecutor and Ms. Bhuvaneswari, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material documents made available on records. 9. 8. On the above points, we have heard Mr. Shanmugavelayudham, learned Public Prosecutor and Ms. Bhuvaneswari, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material documents made available on records. 9. From a reading of the detention order, it is seen that the detenu has two adverse cases, the first one registered at Kanyakumari District Nithiravilai Police Station Crime No: 48 of 2010 for offences under Section 14 , 14(c) and (c) of Foreigner’s Act 1946 r/w 5 (1) (a) of Foreigner’s Order 1948 and the second adverse case is one registered by Villupuram District Marakkanam Police Station Crime No: 456 of 2010 for offences under Sections 6 of Indian Wireless Telegraphic Act 1933 and Section 14(c) Foreigner’s Act 1946 read with Para 7 of Foreigner’s Act 1947. The ground case is one registered in Crime No: 01 of 2013 by the “Q” Branch of Criminal Investigation Department of Coimbatore City, on the complaint of one G. Vivekanandan @ Anandan for offences under Sections 120 (B) and 420 I.P.C. And Section 12(1) (A) of Passport Act 1967 r/w Section 14 of Foreigner’s Act 1946. While considering the immenient possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, the detaining authority has stated as follows in paragraph 8 of the detention order : “ 8 . In the ground case, on his behalf bail application has been filed before the Court of Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate No. II, Coimbatore, in C.M.P. No: 5825/2013 and the same was dismissed on 20.09.2013. However, in a similar case registered at Chennai City, “Q” Branch Criminal Investigation Department Cr. No: 04/2013 u/s 120 (B) r/w 420 IPC r/w 14 (A) (b) of Foreigners Act 1946 and 14 (c) of Foreigners Act 1946, bail was granted to the accused M. Mohamed Saddique by the Court of Hon’ble XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in Crl. M.P. No: 2433/2013 on 17.09.2013. Copies of the above orders have been enclosed in the booklet containing the related documents/records. Hence, I infer that there is a real possibility of the accused Y. Srijeyan @ Jegan @ Madhan @ Santhosh @ Palani coming out on bail by filing bail application in the ground case before the higher Court since bails are granted by the Courts in such cases.“ But, on verification of the booklet, it is found that no such order has been enclosed in the booklet. The learned Public Prosecutor, on verification of the booklet also finds that no such order had been enclosed in the booklet supplied to the detenu. 10. In similar circumstances, in the case of Siva Alias Sivakumar v. Secretary To Government , this Court in H.C.P(MD)No.1253 of 2012, has held as follows: “ 7 . Keeping in view the above legal principles, if we look into the facts involved in the case, there can be no dispute that the detaining authority had come to the conclusion that there is real possibility of the accused coming out on bail and the said conclusion is based on the fact that in a similar case in Crime No.842/2011 on the file of Virudhunagar West Police Station , bail was granted to the accused therein. But, it is the contention of the petitioner that relevant documents relating to the said case, such as FIR, Mahazar etc., have not been furnished. To the contrary, only copy of the bail order has been given. In our considered opinion, non-furnishing of all these material documents to the detaining authority and non-consideration of the same would only indicate the total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. The detaining authority in a mechanical fashion only on considering the bail order has come to the conclusion that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. 8. The preventive detention is made not by way of punishment, but it is only by way of prevention. Though the same has got constitutional sanction, it pre-supposes adherence to the constitutional safeguards. In this case, the said safeguards, as we have pointed out, have not been complied with. Therefore, the impugned Detention Order is liable to be set aside.” 11. In yet another decision, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lakshmi and Another v. Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) and Others, (2013) 3 MLJ (Crl) 513, has held as under: “ 24. Also, an order for preventive detention is made on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. In yet another decision, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lakshmi and Another v. Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) and Others, (2013) 3 MLJ (Crl) 513, has held as under: “ 24. Also, an order for preventive detention is made on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The detaining authority, before exercising the power of preventive detention, would take into consideration the past conduct or antecedents of the person and, as a matter of fact, it is largely from the prior events showing the tendencies or inclinations of a man that an inference could be drawn whether he is likely even in the future to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. If the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority leads to this conclusion, it can provide against such activity by making a preventive detention order. 25. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority with respect to the persons sought to be detained should be based only on the nature of the activities disclosed by the grounds of detention and the grounds of detention must have nexus with the purpose for which the detention is made. Moreover, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must comprehend the very fact that the person sought to be detained is already in jail or under detention and yet a preventive detention order is a compelling necessity. If the subjective satisfaction is reached without the awareness of this very relevant fact, the detention order shall be vitiated. 27. The second ground raised by the petitioners is that the detaining authority has not supplied the vernacular version of the bail order and other relevant documents passed in similar cases relied on by him and the same would deprive the detenus from making an effective representation. On verification of the records as well as the material information and the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor, we find that those documents have not been furnished to the detenus. The detenus are certainly prejudiced by such non furnishing of vernacular version of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority. 28. On verification of the records as well as the material information and the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor, we find that those documents have not been furnished to the detenus. The detenus are certainly prejudiced by such non furnishing of vernacular version of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority. 28. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India provides that when any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. Such an opportunity can be effectively utilised by the detenu by going through the detention order, the grounds of detention, the documents in support thereof on which the detaining authority have the subjective satisfaction and the translation of such documents to the language known to the detenu and by making a representation to the detaining authority for redressing his grievances. In the instant case, from the above grounds, it is evident that such bail order and other relevant documents in vernacular version have not been furnished to the detenu and thereby depriving the detenu from making an effective representation, which would definitely deprive the constitutional right guaranteed under Article 22(5) .” Thus, the non supply of the material relied on by the detaining authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulge in such activities which will be prejudicial to the security of the State and prejudicial to the public order, definitely vitiates the detention order. 12. The second contention raised by the learned counsel is about the applicability of offence invoking Section 420 I.P.C. for collection of funds under the term “Public Order”. In support of his contention, Mr. Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, took us through ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Darpan Kumar Sharma v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (supra) In that case, the detenu was involved in three adverse cases registered at various police stations involving an offence under Section 379 I.P.C. and in the ground case, he was found committing robbery of Rs. 1,000/- from one Kumar at the point of knife and disturbing the even tempo of life of the public. There the contention of the petitioner that his detention is based on the solitary instance is refuted on the basis that in addition to the ground disclosed in the order of detention, there were three other cases registered at different police stations against the petitioner. The Commissioner of police stated that he was found committing robbery from one Kumar at the point of knife and when the public rushed to apprehend him, he picked up stones and pelted the same against the public and created a scare affecting the even tempo of the life of the public and as such his activities would fall within the scope of Section 2(f) of the Act and to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future, he was detained under the Act; that though the petitioner was detained in prison, likelihood of his being released on bail was an imminent possibility enabling him to indulge in similar activities which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing the detenu from indulging in such activities. In that case it was held that. “5. the question whether a man has only committed a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause disturbance of the public order is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the act upon the society; that a solitary assault o one individual can hardly be said to disturb public peace or place public order in jeopardy so as to bring the case within the purview of the Act providing for preventive detention. 6. 6. Therefore, there is no material on record to show that the reach and potentiality of the single incident of robbery was so great as to disturb the even tempo or normal life of the community in the locality or disturb general peace and tranquility or create a sense of alarm and insecurity in the locality.” This is clarified by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor by stating that in the case on hand, it was not a solitary instance but the detenu was allegedly involved in offences involving provisions of various Acts namely Foreginer’s Act 1946 and Indian Wireless Telegraphic Act, 1933 and therefore, the decision relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not applicable to the case on hand. In our considered opinion, the applicability of the provisions of Indian Penal Code as to the collection of the amount is a larger question which has to be decided at the appropriate time. 13. Next comes the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner about the powers of the detaining authority in passing the detention order. To examine this contention, when we go through the detention order, it is stated that, “in exercise of the powers conferred under 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 of Tamil Nadu in G.O. Ms. No: 741, Public (Law and Order. F) Department dated 19.07.2013 under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act “the detaining authority had passed the detention order directing the detention of the detenu. Therefore, this Court examined the said Government Order in G.O. Ms. No: 741, Public (Law and Order. F) Department dated 19.07.2013 under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act “the detaining authority had passed the detention order directing the detention of the detenu. Therefore, this Court examined the said Government Order in G.O. Ms. No: 741 Public (Law & Order-F) Department dated 19.07.2013, the relevant portion of the said order reads as under : “And Whereas the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City has reqeusted that in the circumstances prevailing and likely to prevail in the immediate future in the local limits of Coimbatore City, he may be allowed to exercise the powers under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (Central Act 65 of 1980) for a further period of three months; And Whereas the Government are satisfied that having regard to the circumstances prevailing and the circumstances likely to prevail in the immediate future in the local limits of Coimbatore City , it is necessary to extend the said period further and to direct that the power to make orders detaining persons under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (Central Act 65 of 1980) shall be exercised by the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City for a further period of three months on and from the 20th July 2013 and the orders issued in the Government Order first read above be accordingly amended for this purpose.” From a reading of the above, it is clear that the said Government Order is passed as the Government is satisfied having regard to the circumstances prevailing and the circumstances likely to prevail in the immediate future in the local limits of the Coimbatore City, that the power to make orders detaining persons under the Act shall be exercised by the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City. This Government Order also makes it clear that under the prevailing circumstances in the City of Coimbatore and the circumstance likely to prevail in the immediate future in the local limits of Coimbatore City, the Government are satisfied that the powers to make orders detaining persons under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 be delegated so that it could be exercised by the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City. If that could be the position, whether, with such a delegated power, the Officer concerned will have jurisdiction to go beyond the local limits is not clear from the Government Order. In the case on hand, other than the Coimbatore City, two other Districts viz. Kanyakumari District and Villupuram Districts are involved. Thus, if the offences involved are registered in the police stations of more than one District, who would have jurisdiction, is not clear from the Government Order. The authority of the State Government, while delegating the power, must take note of the situation where more than one District is involved, who will have the authority has to be specified. Similarly, the detaining authority also, while exercising such power by delegation under any Government Order, should make it explicitly clear in the detention order itself. In other words, when the detaining authority is using the power delegated to him by the Government, he should have stated so in the detention order itself or provide the detenu with a copy of the said Government Order. Particularly, when a person is detained under preventive laws, he must be aware of the power of the detaining authority to pass such a detention order then only, he can effectively make a representation against his detention. In this case, the detaining authority has simply mentioned the Government Order viz. G.O. Ms. No. 741 dated 19.07.2013, in the detention order. 14. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that non furnishing of this material, viz. the delegation of power from the Government to the detaining authority vide G.O. Ms. No. 741 Public (Law & Order. F) Department dated 19.07.2013, would have deprived the detenu an opportunity to make an effective representation with regard to the jurisidictional authority of the person passing the detention order and on this ground also, the detention order is liable to be set aside. 15. The object sought to be achieved in the National Security Act is that in the prevailing situation of communal harmony, social tensions, extremist activities, industrial unrest and increasing tendency on the part of various interested parties to engineer agitation on different issues, it was considered necessary that the law and order situation in the country is tackled in a most determined and effective way. Also, the anti-social and anti-national elements including secessionist, communal and pro-caste elements and also other elements who adversely influence and affect the services essential to the community pose a grave challenge to the lawful authority and sometimes even hold the society to ransom. Therefore, considering the complexity and nature of the problems in respect of defence, security, public order and services essential to the community, the Government has come out with a legislation to deal with such situations effectively in the absence of powers of preventive detention. The National Security Act is essential to achieve the above object. 16. The fundamental rights of the citizens enshrined under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India are of paramount consideration while dealing with a legislation for national security, namely, the National Security Act. The authorities, while detaining any citizen under the preventive detention laws, have to make a cautious approach as to the constitutional requirements as well as the security of the nation under the relevant Act. If that could be the position, in the given circumstances, the detaining authority has given a go-by to the constitutional requirements. Instead, it was concerned with the statutory requirements under the Act. True it is, security of the nation is more important and the object of the Act is to be achieved in the manner as contemplated. Equally, the national interest coupled with the fundamental rights of the citizens has to be viewed with great caution, as there cannot be any infringement of fundamental rights of the citizens. 17. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, we have no hesitation to hold that the detention order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 3rd respondent, detaining the detenu Y. Srijeyan @ Jegan @ Madhan @ Santhosh @ Palani, S/o. Yogarasa, made in C.No.02/NSA/IS/2013 dated 08.10.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is otherwise required in connection with any other case. Petition allowed.