( 1. ) THE petitioner (detenu) has challenged his detention order under the provisions of National Security Act, passed by the District Magistrate, Ujjain on 9-9-2002 (Annexure A) and also confirmed by the State Government. The grounds supplied to the detenu are Annexure B.

( 2. ) WE have heard Shri A. S. Garg, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Shri G. S. Yadav for the petitioner and Shri G. Desai, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondent perused the entire record.

( 3. ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the grounds of detention are clearly indicative of the fact that the detaining authority has not effectively applied its mind while passing the detention order. According to ground No. 3, the incident of the year 1996 for the offences under Sections 323, 325, 341 and 506, IPC has been considered whereas this case was already decided on 30-11-98. Again, in ground No. 4, the offence was registered by the police in the year 1998 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 323, IPC and the same has also been decided on 6-9-2000. But, in both these grounds, it is mentioned that the cases are pending before the Courts. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the copy of the First Information Report of the incident dated 7-9-2002 relating to ground No. 1 has been supplied to him and this is the main ground for detention of the petitioner (detenu ). According to this ground, on 7-9-2002, in the noon at 1. 00 P. M. the detenu had assaulted the complainant Satish s/o Chandarsingh r/o Khedi Mohalla, Tarana and because of his act, the businessmen and other persons who were present in the market were terrorized and on the objection being raised by law-abiding people, the detenu uttered as under :-

( 4. ) BY the aforesaid utterances, the detenu created fear in the atmosphere of the locality and against his act, the inhabitants of Tarana came in a procession before the Police Station which put serious obstruction and hindrance in the traffic and the situation was beyond control which led to the disturbance of maintenance of public order. To substantiate this ground, nothing is mentioned in the copy of the First Information Report of the incident dated 7-9-2002 and if there was any report or document relating to this ground, the same were not supplied to the detenu. Therefore, he was not in a position to submit his representation effectively to the State Government as well as to the Advisory Board and he was deprived of the relevant material. Learned Counsel for the detenu has placed reliance on the decisions Ravi Tiwari and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , reported in 2003 (3) M. P. H. T. 528 (DB) = 2003 (2) JLJ 43 and Smt. Victoria Fernandes v. Lalmal Sawma and Ors. , AIR 1992 Supreme Court 687.

( 5. ) AS against the aforesaid submission, learned Deputy Advocate General Shri Desai has submitted that the grounds of detention are clearly establishing that the act of the detenu was sufficient for creating disturbance in communal peace and harmony and there was communal tension in the town and in the market in a broad-day light. The detenu also assaulted Satish s/o Chandarsingh and issued general threat to the public of the locality. His action has caused disturbance to the public order. Therefore, the learned District Magistrate has passed the order of detention under Section 3 Sub-section (2) of the National Security Act, 1980. According to Shri Desai, the solitary ground No. 1 is sufficient for detention of the detenu/petitioner.

( 6. ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties, and after perusing the ground for detention, it is crystal clear that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the learned District Magistrate, Ujjain is not based on true facts. The case mentioned in ground No. 3 is of the year 1996 and the same has been decided by judgment dated 30-11-98. Copy of the judgment filed by the petitioner is Annexure G whereby the petitioner and other two co- accused persons were acquitted by