JUDGMENT

BHAGWATI, J.:—This appeal arises out of a writ petition filed by the 1st respondent challenging the order of detention dated 15th October, 1974, made by the District Magistrate, Sambhalpur in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 3 (2) (a) (iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The High Court of Orissa allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of detention on two grounds; firstly, that the material before the District Magistrate was not such that any reasonable man could possibly arrive at a subjective satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community, and in any event, there was relevant material in existence to the knowledge of the District Magistrate which he failed to take into account in reaching his subjective satisfaction, and secondly, there was delay on the part of the State Government in considering the representation of the 1st respondent against the order of detention and this delay was not satisfactorily explained. The validity of both these grounds is challenged in the present appeal brought by the State and the District Magistrate with special leave obtained from this Court.

2. So far as the first ground is concerned, it is not necessary to examine it and determine whether it is right or wrong, because we have been informed by the learned counsel for the State Government and the District Magistrate that they do not propose to detain the 1st respondent again on the self same material which was brought on record before the High Court even if they succeed in the appeal before us. We must, however, confess that as we read the judgment of the High Court, we cannot escape the feeling that the High Court travelled a little beyond its jurisdiction in entering upon a close and detailed scrutiny of the material before the District Magistrate as if it was sitting in appeal against the findings of the District Magistrate. The only limited jurisdiction possessed by the High Court was to examine whether the subjective satisfaction reached by the District 458 Magistrate was based on no material at all or was such as no reasonable person would arrive at on the basis of the material which was before the District Magistrate. This restricted jurisdiction, it does seem prima facie, the High Court over-stepped in its anxiety and concern for personal liberty. But at the same time, while pointing out this infirmity into which the High Court prima facie seems to have lapsed, we cannot fail to take note of the fact that the inquiry, preliminary to the making of the order of detention, suffers from certain deficiencies, though they may not provide a legal ground for invalidating the order of detention. The District Magistrate relied almost entirely on the report of the Anti-Smuggling Magistrate for the purpose of arriving at his subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of detention. The Anti-Smuggling Magistrate took samples of rice from the Stores of D. M. P., Second Battalion, Jharsuguda and it was on the basis of these samples of rice that a conclusion was reached by him that the rice bought by Havildar Major from the 1st respondent s firm M/s. M. Manilal was fine or super-fine rice and not coarse rice as stipulated in the Release Order. But these samples of rice were taken by the Anti-Smuggling Magistrate in the absence of the 1st respondent or any other representative of M/s. M. Manilal and an elementary precaution was thus ignored. It is also a little surprising that neither the Anti-Smuggling Magistrate, nor the District Magistrate should have carried out an immediate raid on the godown of M/s. M. Manilal for the purpose of finding out what were the different varieties of rice in stock with them and whether the stocks of rice actually found in their possession tallied with the entries in the Stock Register. If M/s. M. Manilal did not deliver t