IMPORTANT POINT
Where sponsoring authority had placed certain irrelevant and extraneous matters before the detaining authority which should have influenced the mind of detaining authority in passing the detention order, the same is liable to be quashed.

JUDGMENT

S. Ratnavel Pandian, J. - Leave granted in the Special Leave Petition.

2. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 12-12-1989 in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 13644/89 passed by the High Court at Allahabad dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, Vashisht Narain Karwaria, the detenu herein.

3. The District Magistrate, Allahabad, in exercise of powers conferred an him under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act 1980 (hereinafter referred to. as 'Act') passed the impugned order of detention an 31-3-1988 against the detenu an reaching his requisite subjective satisfaction an consideration of the materials placed before him that it had became necessary to pass the detention order with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner pre-judicial to the maintenance of public order.

The salient and material facts which necessitated the detaining authority to pass the impugned order, as set out in the grounds of detention are as fallows:

On 30-3-1988 at about 3.30 p.m. the auction of liquor shops far the sale of Indian made foreign liquor was held in the campus of Collectorate at Allahabad. A large number of bidders were present. Among them, the detenu along with his three other associates also participated in the auction. At about 3.30 p.m. the auction of the liquor shop within the area of Mooratganj took place. For this shop the first bid was from one Ajai Kumar far Rs. one lakh. The next bid far the same shop was of Chedi Lal far Rs. one lakh and ten thousand. The moment the said two persons made their bid, the detenu along with his associates stood up in the presence of all prospective bidders and told Ajai Kumar, Chedi Lal and others that the above said shop fell within his area and, therefore, if anybody dared to bid the shop in the auction he would shoot him and also the entire members of his family. So saying the detenu along with his associates advanced towards Ajai Kumar and Chedi Lal threatening them with dire consequences. This created terror and panic among all the bidders. As the situation was becoming worse, Shri Rana Pratap Singh, Station House Officer along with other police officials advanced towards the detenu and his associates to apprehend them. On seeing the police party advancing, the detenu fired at the police party with his country made pistol. Fortunately, no body was hurt. The detenu, however, escaped and being chased by the police party. The detenu fired another two shots and hurled bombs an the police party while fleeing away. His repeated firing and explosion of bombs created further panic and the people assembled far bidding the auction started running away and the nearby shopkeepers pulled dawn their shutters of their shops. The vehicles parked there fled away. Thus the public order was completely disrupted. In connection with this incident, a case was registered in crime No. 221/88 in the Calenolganj Police Station under Sections 307 & 506. Indian Penal Code. The case is still under investigation.

4. On the basis of the above material the detaining authority an being satisfied that there was apprehension of commission of act of violence at the hands of the detenu, which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, passed this impugned order and directed the detenu, to be kept under detention.

5. Admittedly, along with his ground of detention 4 documents were enclosed and served on the detenu. These documents are:

(1) Report of S.S.P. Allahabad dated 31-3-1988.

(2) Report of the S.H.O. Colenalganj Police Station.

(3) Copy Chile No. 199, Crime No. 221 of 1988 under Section 3071 506 of Indian Penal Code in Colenolganj Police Station, Allahabad.

(4) Copy of G.D. No. 37 relating to the aforesaid offence.

6. The detenu challenged the validity of this order before the High Court but became unsuccessful. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, this appeal is now preferred.

7. Mr. R.K. Jain. the learned Sr. Counsel appearing an behalf of the ap