ORDER : Rohit Arya, J. 1. This batch of writ petitions have been preferred challenging legality, validity and propriety of impugned orders of detention dated 19.11.2020 (Ashwin Siroliya and Arun Verma), 21.11.2020 (Karandeep Singh and Anmol Sandhu) and 23.11.2020 (Lucky). Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of the Writ Petition No. 1820/2021 are narrated hereunder. FACTS: 2. For the alleged incident dated 16.11.2020 a named FIR was lodged on the same date against all five petitioners alongwith others and registered an offence at crime No. 416/2020 at Police Station, Chattripura, Indore for the offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 323, 294, 506 and 427 IPC. On 20.11.2020, the Superintendent of Police, West, Indore prepared a note/report based on the alleged incident and forwarded to the Collector, Indore recommending issuance of detention order against all five persons. In exercise of powers under Section 3(2) read with section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act'), separate detention orders for three months were issued on 21.11.2020 and confirmed by the State Government on 28.12.2020. Facts in that behalf were also reported to the Central Government. Thereafter, the grounds of detention alongwith record were forwarded to the Advisory Board for reference under Section 10 of the Act and the Advisory Board has given its opinion under Section 11 of the Act on 18.12.2020, as under: OPINION "We are of the opinion that there exists sufficient cause for detention of Karandeep Rana S/o. Harvindarsingh R/o Distt. Indore, under the National Security Act, 1980. We, however, make it clear that having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Cherukuri Mani w/o Narendra Chowdari Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2015) 13 SCC 722 , the State Government may extend the period of detention upto the maximum 12 months from the date of detention, but, only after reviewing the detention before every 3 months as required under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980. Let our opinion and records be sent to the State Government." (Emphasis supplied) Thereafter, the State Government has passed an order of detention under Section 12 of the Act on 30.12.2020. Let our opinion and records be sent to the State Government." (Emphasis supplied) Thereafter, the State Government has passed an order of detention under Section 12 of the Act on 30.12.2020. During the course of arguments, on 25.02.2021, it transpired that three months period of detention order has expired on 22.02.2021. However, the State Government has further extended validity of detention orders for three months. To place on record aforesaid facts by way of supplementary affidavit, a day's time was granted. Due to administrative reasons, the same could not be placed on record as ordered. However, in terms of the order passed by this Court on 27.02.2021, the order dated 22.01.2021 passed by Collector, Indore extending the detention order for three months expiring on 21.05.2021 based on the report of Superintendent of Police dated 19.01.2021, West, Indore is placed on record. Besides, the order of Collector, Indore has been approved by the State Government as contemplated under Section 3(5) of the Act vide order dated 04/02/2021. The details of orders passed against each of the petitioners are mentioned below: Sr. No. Name of Petitioner Original Detention Order Approval of State Government Opinion of Advisory Board Order of State U/S 12 of NSA Letter of T.I. Report of S.P. Order of Collector for Extension Order of State Government for Extension 1. Karandeep Singh 21.11.2020 28.11.2020 18.12.2020 30.12.2020 15.01.2021 19.01.2021 25.01.2021 04/02/21 2. Anmol Sandhu 21.11.2020 28.11.2020 18.12.2020 30.12.2020 15.01.2021 19.01.2021 25.01.2021 04/02/21 3. Ashwin Siroliya 19.11.2020 25.11.2020 18.12.2020 30.12.2020 14.01.2021 15.01.2021 21.01.2021 02/02/21 4. Arun Sharma 19.11.2020 28.11.2020 18.12.2020 30.12.2020 18.01.2021 19.01.2021 25.01.2021 04/02/21 5. Lucky 23.11.2020 28.11.2020 18.12.2020 30.12.2020 14.01.2021 15.01.2021 21.01.2021 04/02/21 3. Shri Chhabra & Makbool Mansoor, learned counsels have canvassed following propositions:- (i) respondent/State has not forwarded the detention order and other record to the Central Government as required under Section 3(5) of the Act. As such, there is a procedural lapse in the matter of passing of the impugned detention order. (ii) the orders of detention and extension were not communicated to relatives of petitioners (iii) there is no sufficient material on record justifying passing of the impugned detention order by the Collector, Indore dated 21.11.2020 and approved by the State Government on 30.12.2020. (iv) the obtaining facts and circumstances suggest that the alleged incident was in the area of 'law and order' and not of 'public order'. (iv) the obtaining facts and circumstances suggest that the alleged incident was in the area of 'law and order' and not of 'public order'. Learned counsels for the petitioners also submit that the original detention order for three months expired on 22/02/2021. Vide the extension order dated 22/01/2021, the period of detention was further extended for three months expiring on 22/05/2021. The factum of passing of extension order is placed on record under orders of this Court on 25/02/2021 and 27/02/2021. Petitioners' liberty is curtailed and civil rights denied by force of extended detention order without communication. Hence, the grounds of challenge made to the original detention orders dated 19/11/2020, 21/11/2020, 23/11/2020 are also advanced against the extended detention orders of the petitioners. Referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cherukuri Mani w/o Narendra Chowdari Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2015) 13 SCC 722 , learned counsels submit that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in a Habeas Corpus petition, this Court may not insist strict rule of pleadings and relief sought and may examine the sustainability of extension of detention order on the material available on record. No other point was pressed. 4. Per contra, Shri Bhargava, learned Additional Advocate General submits that in compliance of Section 3(5) of the Act, order of approval passed by State Government was also forwarded to Central Government as well explicit from the document itself (Annexure R/7). Therefore, it is incorrect to say that Section 3(5) of the Act was not complied with. (ii) the order of detention dated 21.11.2020 was supplied to the relative of the petitioner as is well evident from Annexure R/2 and also to the detenu in jail vide Annexure R/5 wherein not only order of the detention but, also grounds of detention were supplied to the petitioner. Likewise, the order of extension of detention order has also been supplied through Superintended of Jail to the petitioner informing him of further extension of detention order. As such there is complete compliance of the provision of Sections 3(5) and 8 of the Act. Likewise, the order of extension of detention order has also been supplied through Superintended of Jail to the petitioner informing him of further extension of detention order. As such there is complete compliance of the provision of Sections 3(5) and 8 of the Act. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that a careful perusal of the grounds of detention leaves no iota of doubt that the incidence occurred on 16/11/2020, the acts and conduct attributed to the petitioners and others provided sufficient material affording justification for the satisfaction of the detaining authority to pass detention orders against the petitioners preventing them from indulging in such prejudicial activities to the public order. The gravity and potentiality of the aforesaid incidence assumes significance that it was a well planned conspiracy against Fiyaz Ahmed executed on the date of Deepawali festival, i.e., on 16/11/2020 while Fiaz Ahmed with some people had visited the house of Gopi Krishna Nema, Ex-BJP Indore City President for wishing Deepawali greetings. The petitioners and his associates armed with deadly weapons have caused heavy damage to the house of Gopi Krishna Nema. But, for the efforts of Neema closing the door from behind to provide shield of safety to Fiyaz Ahmed, Aslam Khan and his fellow men, they would have been brutally assaulted by the attacking party endangering their lives. The detaining authority on such material placed before him has rightly recorded his satisfaction that the impact of such planned attack at the house of Gopi Krishna Nema, ex-BJP President, Indore was ill-intended to cause physical assaults on Fiaz Ahmed and his people with deadly weapons to settled scores of business rivalry which could have given raise to communal tension and disturb the safety, peace and tranquility in the area. Therefore, the alleged act was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P., and another Vs. Sanjai Pratap Gupta alias Pappu and others, (2004) 8 SCC 591 (paragraphs 7 & 8) to bolster his submissions. Therefore, the alleged act was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P., and another Vs. Sanjai Pratap Gupta alias Pappu and others, (2004) 8 SCC 591 (paragraphs 7 & 8) to bolster his submissions. Combating the submission that the alleged incidence on 16/11/2020 for which FIR was registered was in the area of "law and order" and not "public order" warranting invocation of authority under sections 3(2) & (3) of the Act; issuance of detention orders, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the aforesaid submission of learned counsels for the petitioners runs contrary to law settled down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts where a distinction has been drawn between the "law and order" and "public order". The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P., and others Vs. Sanjai Pratap Gupta alias Pappu and others, (2004) 8 SCC 591 relying upon the judgments in the cases of Arun Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal, (1970) 1 SCC 98 and Babul Mitra Vs. State of West Bengal, (1974) 4 SCC 504 , has held that the true distinction between the areas of "public order" and "law and order" lies not in the nature or quality of the act, but in the degree and extent of its reach upon society. Therefore, it is not the nature and quality of the act but upon its potentiality and degree which affects even tempo of life of the people in the society. The case in hand squarely falls in well defined contours of concept of "public order" as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, the issuance of order of detention is bona fide and not open for judicial review. While justifying the extension order of detention vide order dated 22/01/2021, learned counsel submits that the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Act, empowers the State Government to amend and extend the period of detention from time to time but not exceeding three months at any one time. He further submits that the detaining authority has recorded its satisfaction on the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, West, Indore dated 19/01/2021. Therefore, the satisfaction recorded is bona fide and based on relevant material. He further submits that the detaining authority has recorded its satisfaction on the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, West, Indore dated 19/01/2021. Therefore, the satisfaction recorded is bona fide and based on relevant material. The State Government has also recorded its satisfaction and affirmed the extension of the order of detention for three months expiring on 22/02/2021 vide order dated 04.02.2021. The opinion/report of the Advisory Board rendered while approving the original detention order had observed that the detention order can be further reviewed and extended for twelve months but, three months at a time. Besides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cherukuri Mani w/o Narendra Chowdari (supra) has held that the State Government may extend the period of detention after review of detention order after every three months of the detention order. Hence, no illegality can be attached to the extension of detention order warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard. 6. Hence, no illegality can be attached to the extension of detention order warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard. 6. Before adverting to the rival submissions on merits of the order of detention, it is appropriate to reproduce the grounds of detention contained in the communication of the Superintendent of Police, West Indore dated 20/11/2020 ^^fnukad 16-11-2020 dks vukosnd dj.knhi firk gjfoUnj flag }kjk [krjukd vL= 'kL=] ryokj pkdw ls ysl gfFk;kjcan 20&25 eksVjlk;dy lokj lkfFk;ksa ds lkFk ,der gksdj lqfu;ksftr "kM;a=iwoZd bUnkSj 'kgj esa fgUnw eqfLye ds lkEiznkf;d naxs djkus o 'kkar 'kgj esa Hk;adj jDrikr djus dh fu;r ls Hkkjrh; turk ikVhZ ds iwoZ fo/kk;d ,oa iwoZ uxj v/;{k xksihd`".k usekth ds ?kj fnokyh feys vk;s eqfLye usrk Q¸;kt ,gen ij fgUnw eqfLye naxk djkus dh fu;r vpkud geyk fd;kA dj.knhi jktk ds lkFk ,d lkFk ntZuksa gfFk;kjcan tksj tksj ls ekjh dkVks ,oa cSgn vlH; 'kCnksa esa eqfLye usrk dks yydkjus yxs rFkk usek th us ceqf'dy nksM+dj njoktk can dj Q¸;kt dks vius ?kj ds vUnj Nqikdj mldh tku cpkÃA Q¸;kt dks ckgj fudkyus gsrq Jhxksihd`".k use ds njokts ij /kkjnkj gfFk;kjh ,oa pkdqvksa ds izgkj Hkh fd;s muds ?kj ij Hkkjh rksM+QksM+ rFkk Q¸;kt ds lkFkh vlye [kku ds ?kj ds ckgj gh ?ksj fy;k o mls tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls mls izk.k?kkrd pksVs igqapkdj v/kejk dj fn;kA Q¸;kt ,gen ds HkkÃ usrk v;kt xqMMw dks tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls fd;k x;s geys ds fiNs 'kgj esa fgUnw eqfLye ds Hkh"k.k lkEiznkf;d naxs djokuk FkkA 20&25 ?kkrd gfFk;kjksa ls ysl eksVjlk;dy lokj }kjk lqfu;ksftr rjhds ls fd;s x;s geys ls {ks= esa luluh QSydj HkxnM+ ep x;h] txeiqjk lkÅFk jkteksgYyk ds yksx ?kjksa esa Nqi x;s efgyk;s o cPps dkQh [kkSQtnk gks x;sA vukosnd ds d`R; ls lekttuksa dh 'kkafr o lqj{kk dks vklUu ladV mRiUu gks x;kA ikl esa gh cEcÃ cktkj VkViVVh ck[ky tSls eqfLye cgqy bykds gS iqfyl cy le; ij ugh igwprk rks dj.k nhi jk.kk o blds ntZuksa gfFk;kjcan lkFkh Hkh"k.k lkEiznkf;d naxs djok nsrsA Q¸;kt ,gen dh fjiksVZ ij Fkkuk N=hiqjk ij vijk/k Øekad 416@2020 /kkjk 147] 148] 149] 452] 307] 323] 294] 506] 427 Hkknfo dk izdj.k iathc} fd;k x;k gSA mDr ?kVuk dh lekpkj i=ksa] fizUV ,oa bysDVªkfud fefM;k dM+h fuank dh gSA ?kVuk dh isij dfVax izfrosnu ds lkFk layXu gSA vukosnd&vukosnd dj.knhi jk.kk firk gjfoUnjflag mez 32 lky fu- 165 czgkiqjh dkWyksuh Hkaojdqvk bUnkSj ds fo:} dk;Zokgh dh tkdj l{ke U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;s x;s gS ftudk fooj.k fuEukuqlkj gSA 1- fnukad 01-02-2006 dks vkjksih vukosnd dj.knhi jk.kk firk gjfoUnjflag mez 32 lky fu- 165 czgkiqjh dkWyksuh Hkaojdqvk bUnkSj us vius vU; lkfFk;ksa dDdw mQZ lq[kfoUnj fcMw mQZ xq:foUnjflag ds lkFk feydj Qfj;kfn;k Jherh xqjehr dkSj ifr cyfoUnjflag fu- 4 ukuduxj bUnkSj ds ?kj esa ?kqldj iwoZ fookn dks ysdj xkyh xykst dh rFkk ekjihV dj pksV igqpkÃ ,oa tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nh vukosnd ds bl d`R; ls vfr laosnu'khy ukuduxj {ks= vkcknh {ks= esa HkxnM+ ep xÃ jkgxhj o nqdkunkj [kkldj efgyk, vius vkidks vlqjf{kr eglwl djus yxsA ?kVuk ds laca/k esa Qfj;kfn;k Jherh xqjehr dkSj ifr cyfoUnjflag dh fjiksVZ ij Fkkuk Hkaojdqvk ij vijk/k Øekad 92@2006 /kkjk 451] 294] 323] 506] 34 Hkknfo dk iathc} dj foospuk esa fy;k x;kA foospuk mijkUr vijk/k fl} ik;s tkus ij vukosnd dj.knhi jk.kk firk gjfoUnjflag dks fxjrkj dj pkykd uEcj 168@2006 fnukad 23-04-2006 dkdrk fd;k tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds QkSequ- 2111@2006 fnukad 28-06-2006 fnukad 28-06-2006 ij is'k U;k;ky; fd;k x;kA ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk vkjksihx.kksa dks vFkZn.Mr fd;k x;kA bl laca/k esa udy tjk;edh lR;kfir izfr ifjf'k"B Øekad 01 ij layXu gSA 2- fnukad 13-11-2020 dks Qfj;knh vlye [kku firk eqUuk [kku fu- 6 rktuxj [ktjkuk QS;kt [kku dks ysdj xksih usek ds ?kj taxeiqjk Fkkuk N=hiqjk esa feyus x;k Fkk rFkk vukosnd dj.knhi jk.kk firk gjfoUnjflag mez 32 lky fu- 165 czgkiqjh dkyksuh Hkaojdqvk bUnkSj }kjk vius lkfFk;ksa vlkuh fljksfy;k] dj.k jk.kk ,oa 20&25 vU; lkfFk;ksa ds lkFk ,der gksdj 'kL= ysdj ds Qfj;knh ds lkFk vMhckth ,oa xq.MkxnhZ djrs gq, ek¡ cfgu dh xanh xanh xkfy;k nh vius dks cpkrs gq, Hkxdj xksihusek ds ?kj esa ?kql x;k rFkk pkdw ls izk.k ?kkrd geyk dj pksV igqpkÃ o tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsdj edku eas rksM+QksM+ dj uqdlku igqpk;kA vukosnd ds bl d`R; ls vfr laosnu'khy taxeiqjk fgUnw eqfLye fefJr vkcknh {ks= esa HkxnM+ ep xÃ jkgxhj o nqdkunkj vius vkidks vlqjf{kr eglwl djus yxsA vke turk dh yksd ifj'kkafr dks vklUu [krjk mUiUu gks x;kA ?kVuk ds laca/k esa Qfj;knh vlye [kku firk eqUuk [kku dh fjiksVZ ij Fkkuk N=hiqjk ij vijk/k Øekad 416@2020 /kkjk 147] 148] 149] 452] 307] 323] 294] 506] 427 Hkknfo dk izdj.k ntZ dj foospuk esa fy;k x;kA vkjksih ?kVuk fnukad ls Qjkj py jgk gSA ?kVuk dks ysdj fofHkUu lekpkj i=ksa esa izdkf'kr dh xÃA bl laca/k esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ,oa lekpkj i= dh lR;kfir izfr ifjf'k"B Øekad 02 ij layXu gSA mijksDr fooj.k ls Li"V gS fd vukosnd dj.knhi jk.kk firk gjfoUnjflag mez 32 lky fu- 165 czgkiqjh dkyksuh Hkaojdqvk bUnkSj vijkf/kd nq"d`R; djrs gq, yksd ifj'kkafr ,oa lkekftd O;oLFkk Hkax djus dh dksf'k'k djrk vk jgk gSA ftlls vke turk vius nSfud dk;ksZ dks djus esa Hk; eglwl djrs gSA blds QyLo#i vke turk ds yksxks esa gj le; yksd ifj'kkafr Hkax gksus dk Hk; cuk jgrk gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vukosnd dj.knhi jk.kk firk gjfoUnjflag mez 32 lky fu- 165 czgkiqjh dkyksuh Hkaojdqvk bUnkSj ds nqLlkgfld vkijkf/kd d`R;ksa ifj.kke Lo#i ges'kk gh bUnkSj 'kgj dh yksd O;oLFkk fNUu fHkUu gksus dh izcy laHkkouk cuh jgrh gSA bldh vkujkf/kd xfrfof/k;ksa ds dkj.k 'kgj dh vke turk esa dkQh ng'kr dk ekgkSy iSnk gks x;k gSA vukosnd ds d`R;ksa ls dkuwu O;oLFkk Hkax gksus dh fLFkfr fufeZr gksdj yksd 'kkafr O;oLFkk fNUu fHkUu gksus dk vklUu [krjk mRiUu gks x;k gSA** 7. The contention advanced in the context of compliances under section 3(5) of the Act in the matter of forwarding of detention order with record to the Central Government and non-supply of the order of detention with grounds of detention referable to section 8 of the Act are held to be in despair and devoid of substance in the light of the documents placed on record vide Annexure R/7 whereby the order of detention with record was sent to the Central Government and the order of detention was served on the relatives of the detenu as evident from Annexure R/2 and also detenu in jail (Annexure R/5) alongwith grounds of detention. Hence, the challenge to the detention orders on the aforesaid grounds is hereby rejected. 8. Before addressing the rival contentions on the grounds of detention as detailed in the report of the Superintendent of Police dated 20/11/2020 (Annexure R/8), it is expedient to reiterate the well settled distinction between the "law and order" and "public order". The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Manohar Lohia (Dr.) v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740 , wherein Justice Hidayatullah (As His Lordship then was) by stating various illustrative instances and illustrations defined the 'public order' and 'law and order' as under:- "51. ...Does the expression "public order" take in every kind of disorder or only some? The answer to this serves to distinguish "public order" from "law and order" because the latter undoubtedly takes in all of them. Public order if disturbed, must lead to public disorder. Every breach of the peace does not lead to public disorder. When two drunkards quarrel and fight there is disorder but not public disorder. They can be dealt with under the powers to maintain law and order but cannot be detained on the ground that they were disturbing public order. Suppose that the two fighters were of rival communities and one of them tried to raise communal passions. The problem is still one of law and order but it raises the apprehension of public disorder. Other examples can be imagined. The contravention of law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. The problem is still one of law and order but it raises the apprehension of public disorder. Other examples can be imagined. The contravention of law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Defence of India Act but disturbances which subvert the public order are. A District Magistrate is entitled to take action under Rule 30(1)(b) to prevent subversion of public order but not in aid of maintenance of law and order under ordinary circumstances. 52. It will thus appear that just as "public order" in the rulings of this Court (earlier cited) was said to comprehend disorders of less gravity than those affecting "security of State", "law and order" also comprehends disorders of less gravity than those affecting "public order". One has to imagine three concentric circles. Law and order represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest circle represents security of State. It is then easy to see that an act may affect law and order but not public order just as an act may affect public order but not security of the State...." In Commissioner of Police v. C. Anita, (2004) 7 SCC 467 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "28. In Commissioner of Police & Others v. C. Anita (Smt.), (2004) 7 SCC 467 , this court again examined the issue of "public order" and "law and order" and observed thus: "7. ....The crucial issue is whether the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to public order. While the expression "law and order" is wider in scope inasmuch as contravention of law always affects order, "public order" has a narrower ambit, and public order could be affected by only such contravention which affects the community or the public at large. Public order is the even tempo of life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. The distinction between the areas of "law and order" and "public order" is one of the degree and extent of the reach of the act in question on society. Public order is the even tempo of life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. The distinction between the areas of "law and order" and "public order" is one of the degree and extent of the reach of the act in question on society. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. If a contravention in its effect is confined only to a few individuals directly involved as distinct from a wide spectrum of the public, it could raise problem of law and order only. It is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular eruption of disorder that helps to distinguish it as an act affecting "public order" from that concerning "law and order". The question to ask is: "Does it lead to disturbance of the current life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquility of the society undisturbed?" This question has to be faced in every case on its facts." The aforesaid principle is again reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P., and another Vs. Sanjai Pratap Gupta alias Pappu and others, (2004) 8 SCC 591 (paragraph 7). The aforesaid judgments amongst others succinctly have drawn distinction between "law and order" and "public order". This Court finds substantial force in the submission of learned Additional Advocate General that the distinction between the areas of "law and order" and the "public order" are one of degree and extent to the reach of the act in question upon society. 9. Upon careful perusal of the report of the Superintendent of Police West, Indore and the grounds of detention dated 20/11/2020 (Annexure R/8) quoted above, it is 'as clear as Noon in the day' that on 16/11/2020, the petitioners prima facie conspired and with common intention alongwith other persons attacked Fiaz Ahmed and other people with him while he had gone to the house of Gopi Krishna Nema, Ex-BJP Indore City President for wishing Deepawali greetings. The petitioners were armed with deadly weapons. The petitioners and others indiscriminately and randomly attacked the house of Gopi Krishna Nema and caused heavy damage to his house. The petitioners were armed with deadly weapons. The petitioners and others indiscriminately and randomly attacked the house of Gopi Krishna Nema and caused heavy damage to his house. They allegedly made all out efforts to brutally assault Fiaz Ahmed, Aslam Khan and his associates, as well detailed in the report. The date and timing of attacked irresistibly had the potential to cause communal disharmony in the area causing disturbance and imperil safety, peace and tranquility/even tempo of people of two communities in the area. In our considered opinion, the satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority on the basis of grounds of detention is bona fide and within well defined contours of the concept of "public order". Hence, no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted. 10. However, the question arises; whether the detaining authority was justified extending the detention order by three months expiring on 22/05/2021? 11. For ready reference the report of the Superintended of Police, West, Indore dated 19.01.2021 and based on which order passed by the Collector extending the period of detention vide order dated 21.01.2021 are quoted below:- ^^fnukad 19-01-2021 mijksDr fo"k;kafdr ,oa lanfHkZr i= ds ek/;e ls ys[k fd;k x;k gS fd jklqdk canh dj.knhi flag jk.kk firk gjfoUnjflag jk.kk mez 32 lky fuoklh 165 czEgiqjh dkyksuh Hkaojdqvk bUnkSj dh fujks/k vof/k fnukad 22-02-2021 dks lekIr gks jgh gS bl laca/k esa fujks/k vof/k lekfIr fnukad dks vkSj c Fkkuk izHkkjh N=hiqjk ls izfrosnu izkIr djrs vius izfrosnu es ys[k fd;k gS fd jklqdk canh dj.knhi flag jk.kk firk gjfoUnjflag jk.kk us fnukad 16-11-2020 dks vXus;'kL=ksa] ryokj] pkdw ls ysl gksdj gfFk;kjcan 20&25 eksVjlkbfdy lokj lkfFk;ksa ds lkFk feydj lqfu;ksftr "kM;a=iwoZd bUnkSj 'kgj esa fgUnw eqfLye lkEiznkf;d naxs djkus dh fu;r ls Hkkjrh; turk ikVhZ ds iwoZ fo/kk;d ,oa iwoZ uxj v/;{k Jh xksikyd`".k usek ds ?kj fnokyh feyus vk;s eqfLye usrk Q¸;kt ,gen ij vpkud geyk dj mlds lkFkhj vlye [kku dks izk.k?kkrd pksVs igqapkÃA jklqdk canh vijkf/kd i`"BHkwfe dk cnek'k gS canh dkQh 'kkfrj gS tks fjgk gksrs gh iqu% "kM;a=dkjh xfrfof/k;ksa esa 'kkfey gksxk rFkk bankSj 'kgj dh 'kkafr O;oLFkk dks Hkax dj lekttuksa dks vklUu ladV mRiUu dj nsxkA vr% jklqdk canh dj.knhi flag jk.kk firk gjfoUnjflag jk.kk mez 32 lky fuoklh 165 czEgiqjh dkyksuh Hkaojdqvk bUnkSj dh fujks/k vof/k lekfIr fnukad dks vkSj c There is no other material placed on record. Proviso to sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Act, though empowers the detaining authority to amend the original detention order and extend for three months at any one time but it casts an obligation of recording of satisfaction preceding extension of detention order. Recording of satisfaction is not a mere formality or a ministerial act. Instead, the satisfaction must be based on such relevant material justifying further extension of detention order. Solemnity attached to the extension of detention order is same as the issuance of detention order itself. In either case; a person is kept in jail curtailing his personal liberty without trial frowning upon the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, prevalence of relevant material in the matter of formation of opinion or for recording of satisfaction is an essential requirement for extension of the detention order as well. Perusal of the aforesaid quoted reports suggest that the gist of same grounds have been reiterated preceding the original detention orders dated 19/11/2020, 21/11/2020 and 23/11/2020 passed against petitioners and there is no new material or such other material placed on record justifying recommendation for extension of the detention orders. Mere perception of police personnel without factual foundation, in our opinion, shall not provide sufficient relevant material for extension of detention orders under the garb of threat to the safety and tranquility of the people in society or even tempo of the people of the community. As such, we hold that the extension of the detention orders are not in conformity with the requirement of sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Act. Upshot of the aforesaid discussion leads to partial success of the writ petitions. The original detention orders passed by the Collector, Indore as approved by the State Government (supra) in respect of the petitioners are held to be fully justified. However, the extension of detention orders passed by the Collector, Indore and approved by the State Government dated 04/02/2021 as mentioned in the table referred above are hereby quashed. The petitioners are reported to be in jail. They are set at liberty, unless; they are required to be detained in any other case, in jail. However, the extension of detention orders passed by the Collector, Indore and approved by the State Government dated 04/02/2021 as mentioned in the table referred above are hereby quashed. The petitioners are reported to be in jail. They are set at liberty, unless; they are required to be detained in any other case, in jail. Before parting with the case, it is considered apposite to observe that there are sufficient provisions in our penal laws to carry out the investigation regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and complete the investigation in crime No. 416/2020 registered at Police Station, Chattripura, Indore for the offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 323, 294, 506 and 427 IPC with logical conclusions, expeditiously. Thereafter, the competent authority shall proceed in accordance with law. Writ petitions stand disposed of, accordingly. No order as to cost. A photocopy of this order be placed in the connected writ petitions. E-certified copy as per rules.

Karandeep Singh v. State of M. P.