JUDGMENT : By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is father of detenue is challenging the order dated 30/10/2018 passed by District Magistrate, Jabalpur whereby learned District Magistrate has initiated proceeding against Mubeen, son of the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 and sent him Central Jail, Jabalpur for a period of three months in violation to his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The maintain contention of the writ petitioner is that the respondents without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner have passed the impugned order on the ground that he is a habitual offender and number of criminal cases were registered against him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the list of criminal cases and submitted that the Superintendent of Police gave incorrect information whereas out of 20 cases in 15 cases he has been acquitted on merit, in two cases fine was imposed and at the time of initiation of proceeding under NSA Act, only three cases were pending for final adjudication before the trial Court. Prior to passing of detention order, the detenue was worked as labour and was not involved in any criminal activities. The impugned order has been passed just to keep away him from the Vidhan Sabha Election. 4. To appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, we reproduce the relevant part of the recommendation letter (Annexure-P/2) of Superintendent of Police which reads as under:- ^^mijksDr laiw.kZ vijkf/kd ?kVukvksa ls ;g Hkyh&Hkkrh Li"V gksrk gS fd vukosnd fcuk dBksj fu;U=.k ds viuh vijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ksa dks fujarj tkjh j[ksxkA Fkkuk guqekurky esa jgus okyh turk dks fujarj vkarfdr dj 'kkafr ls jgus ugha fn;k x;k ,oa {ks=h; tuekul dks Hk;kafdr dj {ks+= dh 'kkafr Hkax dj vke ukxfjdksa ds thus ds vf/kdkjksa dk guu djsxkA vkxkeh pquko ds yksdra= dks ewyHkko fufHkZd ,oa fu"i{k ernku dks Hkh vius ÁHkko ls ÁHkkfor djus dk Á;kl djsxkA blfy, o"kZ 2018&19 ds fo/kkulHkk@yksdlHkk pquko esa 'kkafr O;oLFkk ÁHkkfor gksxhA** 5. As per Section 3(2) of National Security Act, the District Magistrate may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, make an order directing that such person be detained. As per Section 3(2) of National Security Act, the District Magistrate may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, make an order directing that such person be detained. Law on the subject matter is well settled. The detaining authority must be satisfied that the person to be detained is likely to act in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the authority must be further satisfied that it is necessary to detain such person in order to prevent him from doing so. While passing the order of detention it is for the detaining authority to record his subjective satisfaction on the relevant grounds. The application of mind in a mechanical manner cannot be permitted to be termed as a subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. It is also the duty of sponsoring authority to collect all the relevant material and placed before the detaining authority. 6. As per reply, Station House Officer, Hanumantal, District Jabalpur has submitted a report before the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur against detenue on the ground that he is a hard criminal and is involved in number of criminal activities from the year 1997 and against him serious offences of murder and attempt to murder have been registered, therefore, the peace of the local area has been disturbed and the public used to afraid from the criminal activities of the detenue. It is further stated that because of terror of the detenue, no public personal come forward for lodging the report against him. The son of the petitioner is also involved in Marpeet and assaulted to the persons and also kept arms and explosive in his possession, therefore, the detention proceeding was initiated against the detenue and thereafter, after appreciating the report an order of detention has been passed on 30/10/2018. There is also allegation against detenue that he has also assaulted by means of knife to a person in the Court premises. Three criminal cases vide Crime No.357/2001 under Sections 294, 506, 34, 173 of IPC (Criminal Case No.3743/2001), Crime No.217/2002 under Sections 341, 294, 506, 34 of IPC (Criminal Case No.496/2002) and Crime No.103/2017 registered under Section 302 of IPC and under Section 25/27 of Arms Act (Criminal Case No.9806/2017) are pending before the trial Court. Three criminal cases vide Crime No.357/2001 under Sections 294, 506, 34, 173 of IPC (Criminal Case No.3743/2001), Crime No.217/2002 under Sections 341, 294, 506, 34 of IPC (Criminal Case No.496/2002) and Crime No.103/2017 registered under Section 302 of IPC and under Section 25/27 of Arms Act (Criminal Case No.9806/2017) are pending before the trial Court. No material or detail has been produced by the respondents to prove that detenue was assaulted by means of knife to a person in the Court premises. The sole ground of order of detention is that the detenue is a hard cove criminal, therefore, due to Vidhan Sabha Election, it is necessary to detain him. 7. The Apex Court in the case of Sama Aruna Vs. State of Telangana and another (Criminal Appeal No.885/2017), decided on 03/05/2017 has held that the detention order is vitiated by taking into account incidents so far back in the past as would have no bearing on the immediate need to detain him without a trial. The satisfaction of the authority is not in respect of the thing in regard to which it is required to be satisfied. Incidents which are stale, cease to have relevance to the subject matter of the enquiry and must be treated as extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute. 8. Thus, it is clear from the record that there is nothing to support the contention of the prosecution or to support the allegations mentioned in the order of respondent No.2. We do not find any supporting evidence for subjective satisfaction that the petitioner was indulged in any anti social activities or he was creating threat to the communal harmony or to the law and order situation of the local area. On the basis of number of criminal cases pending against the detenue is not sufficient to show that the detenue has created any communal threat to the public tranquility or he was a permanent threat to the law and order situation or communal harmony. The whole case of the prosecution is based on the apprehensions and assumptions of the SHO. No supporting document was produced. No opportunity of hearing was granted to the detenue. The whole case of the prosecution is based on the apprehensions and assumptions of the SHO. No supporting document was produced. No opportunity of hearing was granted to the detenue. The order of the District Magistrate has no substance as required to give away the civil and constitutional right granted to every citizen by Article 21 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as no personal shall be deprived of life and liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The law of preventive detention is to be strictly construed and the procedure provided must be meticulously complied with. In the case in hand no such requirement is fulfilled, therefore, the detention does not appear to be valid and legal. In the present case, we do not find any support from the record regarding apprehensions expressed by the SHO or subsequently by the SP or the District Magistrate. In the absence of any support, we do not find it proper to infringe the personal liberty of any person. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the order of detention dated 30/10/2018 passed by respondent No.3 is hereby set aside. The detenue be set at liberty forth with, if not required in other case.