JUDGMENT :

Ranganath Misra, J.

The respondent, an advocate, was ordered to be detained by the Government of Rajasthan under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on August 14, 1984, and he was actually taken into custody and detained on the following day. The grounds of detention were supplied to him when he was detained. Respondent challenged his detention before the Rajasthan High Court by filing two applications under Article 226 of the Constitution on several grounds. Both the writ applications were clubbed and heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. The High Court found that the representation of the detenu-respondent had not been placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks as required by Section 10 of the Act and such violation vitiated the continued detention of the respondent. It also found that the Advisory Board had not considered the documentary evidence produced by the detenu and the opinion formed by the Board that the respondent should be detained was, therefore, not an appropriate one. The court took the view that the materials in the record which had been considered by the Advisory Board in formulating its recommendation to the State Government had not been transmitted to the Government and the same was not available before the State Government when it made the order of confirmation. The Court was also of the further view that the contents of the intelligence reports referred to in the grounds of detention had not been supplied to the detenu and he had, therefore, been deprived of the opportunity of making an effective representation against his detention. On these findings the High Court held that the detention of the respondent cannot be upheld and the order of detention dated August 14, 1984, and the subsequent order dated October 22. 1984, directing him to be detained for one year be quashed. The court, further directed :

"In the interest of justice and in the interest of National Security, without curtailing seriously individual liberty, we give the following directions :

(1) that the detenu Shamsher Singh being entitled to liberty on account of the above order of ours will be released from the Central Jail, Ajmer;

(2) that the detenu Shamsher Singh would be nonetheless kept either under house arrest or in a place like Dak Bungalow or Circuit House at Ajmer or a nearby place within the radius of 50 Kms. with the members of his family, which would consist of his wife, and three minor sons;

(3) that if the detenu is kept, under house arrest, the expenses will be borne by the detenu, but if he is kept in some Dak Bungalow or other Circuit House, then his expenses will be borne by the State;

(4) that the authorities would permit interview with other relatives also, if the detenu is kept outside his house.

In case no stay order is received staying the operation of the judgment of this Court, the detenu shall be released on expiry of three weeks, i.e. on 11-1-85."

2. This Court granted special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court by its order dated January 18, 1985. In the meantime, the High Court had suspended the operation of its order till January, 21, 1985, and while granting special leave, this Court stayed operation of the judgment.

3. Learned Advocate-General of the appellant State appearing in support of the appeal maintained that each of the four grounds accepted by the High Court in quashing the detention is wrong and not sustainable as a ground for such quashing while Mr. Jethmalani appearing for the. respondent supported the reasonings and the ultimate conclusion of the High Court. We have already stated that the High Court formulated the reasons for its order in the shape of four conclusions and we propose to deal with them seriatim for convenience.

4. The first ground of attack advanced by the respondent against the order which impressed the High Court is that there has been violation in complying with the provisions of Sec