JUDGMENT
S.B. Roy, C.J.
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of habeas corpus as he is detained under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) pursuant to the order of detention dated 29.10.2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam. The detention order is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which reads as follows:
In pursuance of the provisions of N.S. Act, 1980, the grounds relating to your detention under the Act alongwith other relevant documents are sent herewith as per enclosures for your information.
2. You are hereby further informed that you have a right to make a representation to the State Government in Home Department Under Section 8 of N.S. Act/Central Government Under Section 14 of N.S. Act against the order of detention passed against you. You may address your representation, if any, at the earliest to the Principal Secretary to Government of Orissa, Home (Special Section) Department, Bhubaneswar/Central Government, Govt. of India, New Delhi through the Superintendent of Circle Jail where you are detained so as to enable the Government to consider your representation.
Sd/IIIegible
District Magistrate,
Ganjam.
2. It, therefore, appears from the above quoted order of detention dated 29.10.2005 that the same does not disclose as to why the detention of the petitioner under the provisions of the Act is necessary. It also does not refer to any of the provisions of the said Act under which the impugned order of detention was passed against the petitioner. However, from the grounds of detention it appears that as it was apprehended that the petitioner might indulge in activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, his detention was considered necessary.
3. Prom the aforesaid grounds of detention, it appears that the impugned order of detention was issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, though in the order of detention, the same has not been specifically mentioned. On perusal of the grounds of detention, it further appears that various cases have been registered against the petitioner for manufacturing illicit liquor. All the police cases referred to in the grounds of detention are relating to manufacturing of illicit liquor which are offences under the Bihar & Orissa Excise Act.
4. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that manufacture of illicit liquor cannot be treated as a ground for detaining the petitioner under the Act. Office of manufacturing illicit liquor as attributed to the petitioner, in violation of excise law, cannot have any nexus with the maintenance of public order. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that from the grounds of detention it is clear that in order to prevent the petitioner from getting him released on bail in various criminal cases instituted against him for the alleged offences under the Bihar & Orissa Excise Act, the order of detention was passed. Basing on the above, he contends that since the detaining authority has mentioned in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is being detained for preventing him from being released on bail, it is amply clear that no case whatsoever has been made out in the grounds of detention for detaining the petitioner under the Act.
5. Though various case laws were cited before us, for brevity, we do not like to refer to all such case laws. Law on the point is well settled that the expression “law and order” is wider in scope inasmuch as contravention of law always affects order, while ‘public order’ has a narrower ambit and public order would be affected by only such contravention which affects the community or the public at large. Public order is the even tempo of life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. The distinction between the are of ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ is one of degree and extent of the reach of the act in question on society. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community, which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. (See Smt. Victoria Fernandes v. Lalmal Sawma and Ors. ).
6. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, as we find that the petitioner has been accused in several cases registered against him for contravention of the provisions of the Bihar & Orissa Excise Act for manufacturing illicit liquor, in our view, the said offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner does not constitute an act relating to public order and is not prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or the tempo of life of the community.
7. The view of the above, we are constrained to hold that the order of detention, which has been passed against he petitioner, does not satisfy the requirement of the Act and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we quash the order of detention dated 29.10.2005 under Annexure-1 and direct that the petitioner-Bangali. @ Manoranjan Sahu be set at liberty forthwith, provided his detention is not required in connection with any other case.
8. This petition is allowed.
M.M. Das, J.
9. I agree.