JUDGMENT

RANGANATH MISRA, J.:—The detaining authority under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (Act for short) being the District Magistrate of Nowgong and the State of Assam assail the decision of the High Court at Gauhati quashing the order of detention.

2. On October 20, 1982, the District Magistrate made the following order :

"Whereas I am satisfied from the dossier submitted by Superintendent of Police, Nowgong that it is necessary to prevent Shri Sarat Mudoi s/o Shri Renu Mudoi, village Senchows, P. S. Nowgong from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order and maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community I. S. Kablian I.A.S., District Magistrate, Nowgong, hereby in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(3) of National Security Act, 1980, direct that Shri Sarat Mudoi be detained with immediate effect until further orders".

3. In the grounds of detention which were supplied to the detenu within the time provided by law, six grounds were specified. Before the High Court several contentions were raised including the one to the effect that if the detaining authority does not specify in the order of detention as to which particular supply and /or service he had in mind while making it, the order of detention is vitiated. After hearing counsel for the parties, the High Court came to the conclusion,

"We are of the view that as while passing the order of detention the authority has to specify the particular prejudicial activity whose prevention he has in mind, so also he must specify the particular supply and service which according to him is being prejudicially affected by the activities of the detenu. The notified categories of supplies and services thus really get as if implanted in the Act and an order of detention on this score must have reference to one or more specified supplies and services forming part of notified categories. Any other view would also pose a possibility of abuse of power as a result of absence of full application of mind."

and set aside the order of detention.

4. At the stage of notice on the special leave petition this Court on March 10, 1963, made the following order :

"Issue notice to the respondent returnable within a week confined to the question as to whether according to the ratio laid down by this Court in A. K. Roy v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 710), it is necessary to specify in the order of detention itself the particular supplies and services essential to the community which are affected by the activities of the detenu or will it suffice if it is mentioned in the grounds for detention".

5. On behalf of the State this Court was told that even if the appeal was allowed, the respondent would not be detained for the unexpired portion of the period.

6. The short question that survives for consideration, therefore, is whether without the particulars of supplies and services specified in the order of detention, it is bad. In A. K. Roys case and the connected matters this Court took the view that no person could be detained under Section 3(2) of the Act with a view to preventing. him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community unless by a law or notification made or published fairly in advance the supplies and services the maintenance of which is regarded as essential to the community and in respect of which the order of detention is proposed to be passed are made known properly to the public. Accordingly, by a notification on February 8, 1982, 16 specified supplies and services were notified as essential to the community and this notification was duly published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary issue of the same day. Under the Act the detenu is entitled to make a representation against the : order of detention. It is manifest from the statutory scheme that his right to represent is after the grounds are served on the detenu. It is th