JUDGMENT

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.:— Abhay Sridhar Ambulkar-petitioner has been detained under the National Security Act, 1980 ("The Act"). The order of detention dated 12th February 1990 was issued by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, who is the first respondent in these cases. The order was issued under Section 3 (2) of the Act with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention have been served to the petitioner along with the detention order. The petitioner challenged the validity of his detention in the High Court of Bombay by means of a Writ Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The High Court has dismissed the writ petition. Against the judgment of the High Court, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1407 of 1990 has been preferred. Simultaneously, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1248 of 1990 under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the same order of detention by raising a new ground which has not been taken before the High Court.

2. We have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused grounds of detention and the judgment of the High Court. The High Court has properly considered all the questions raised and we are in agreement with the conclusion reached by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is, therefore, rejected.

3. This takes us to the Writ Petition in which an additional question has been raised. The question relates to the validity of the Government order dated 6th January 1990 pursuant to which the Commissioner of Police made the detention order. It would be convenient to set out that order hereunder.

ORDER

Dated 6th January 1990

59. NATIONAL SECURITY ACT

1980

NO. NSA-2390/ 1/SPL-3(B) - Where as the Government of Maharashtra is satisfied that having regard to circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in the Greater Bombay Police Commissionerate, it is necessary that during the period commencing on 30th January, 1990 and ending on the 29th April, 1990, the Commissioner of Police and the said Commissioner should also exercise the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (65 of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act)

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of the Section 3 of the said Act, the Government of Maharashtra hereby directs that for the period commencing on the 30th January 1990 and ending on 29th April 1990 the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay may also if satisfied as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 3,of the said Act exercise the powers conferred on the State Government by subsection (2) of Section 3 of the said Act.

By order and in the name of Governor of Maharashtra."

4. On 12th February 1990, the Commissioner of Police in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act read with Government order dated 6th January 1990, passed the order of detention which has been challenged in this case.

5. The essence of the attack of counsel for the petitioner is that there was no valid conferment of power on the Commissioner to make the detention order. Counsel submitted that the Government issued the order dated 6th January 1990 without applying its mind and it simply reproduces the wordings of subsection (3) of Section 3. The satisfaction of the Government for conferring power on the Commissioner for the period in question purports to have been reached on the circumstances prevailing on the date of the order or likely to prevail during the three months period in question. The Government was not certain which of the alternate circumstances was relevant for reaching the subjective satisfaction and seems to have acted in mechanical manner without application of mind.

6. In order to appreciate these submissions it is necessary to set out Section 3, so far as material. It reads:

"3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons-

(1) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

(2) The Central Government