The validity of detention orders under the National Security Act can be maintained even if some grounds are deemed irrelevant, provided at least one valid ground exists.

1. These matters have been placed before the Full Bench pursuant to the reference made by the Division Bench in the respective writ petitions.

2. The first reference was made in Writ Petition No. 2689/2013 filed by Kheri Gurjar before the Bench at Gwalior (now renumbered as Writ Petition No. 13989/2015 at Jabalpur) vide order dated 05/09/2013. The judges of the Division Bench differed in their views, as a result of which reference to the third Judge became necessary. The question formulated by the Bench reads thus:
"Whether, after considering the provision of S.5(A) of National Security Act and judgment of this Court in Haji Abdul Rajjak v. State of M. P. and Others, 2012 (5) M. P. H. T. 111 (DB), the detention order of the competent authority passed under the N. S. A. Act can be set - aside on the basis of earlier view held in this Court's judgment reported as Tasildar Singh v. State of M. P. and Others, 2011 (1) M. P. H. T. 513 (DB) wherein, the provision of S.5(A) of the Act was not considered."

3. In another writ petition which came up for consideration before the same Division Bench at Gwalior being Writ Petition No. 4038/2013 (now renumbered as Writ Petition No. 13987/2015 at Jabalpur), the Court vide order dated 21/10 / 2013, formulated substantial questions of law for consideration by the Larger Bench, as follows:
"(1) Whether the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Haji Abdul Rajjak (supra) interpreting S.5A of NSA Act has laid down the correct law or not?
(2) Whether the observations of the Division Bench in Haji Abdul Rajjak (supra) that earlier two judgments Dharamdas Shamlal Agrawal (supra) and Tahsildar Singh (supra) have lost significance in the facts of the case and in view of S.5A of the Act is correct or not?
(3) Whether the State has to plead and mention in the counter - affidavit or return the fact that the order of detention has been passed on each ground and it be treated as a separated order under S.5A of the Act in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. Sowkath Ali (supra)?"
However, the Registry mistakenly placed this matter before the third Judge, after taking administrative order of the Chief Justice. The third Judge, vide order dated 18/12/2013, justly, opined that there was no difference of opinion on any point amongst the judges comprising the Division Bench in this case and, therefore, it was not necessary to give any opinion.

4. Both the matters were thereafter placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side. It was ordered that the matter be placed before the Full Bench, to be heard at the Principal Seat. Accordingly, both the writ petitions were transferred to the Principal Seat from Bench at Gwalior and have been placed for analogous hearing before the Full Bench.

5. Briefly stated, in writ petition filed by Kheri Gurjar which was the first writ petition heard by the same Division Bench at Gwalior, there was difference of opinion between the two Judges. One judge was of the opinion that as the detenu has been acquitted in nine out of twelve criminal cases referred to in the grounds accompanying the detention order, that fact was a material fact and essential to be placed before the Detaining Authority. Having failed to do so, the detention order was vitiated. For taking that view, the learned Judge placed reliance on paras 11 to 13 of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court