JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Rao, J.
1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus for the production and release of one Sri Kishanlal who is detained by an order of detention dated 20-8-1982, under the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter called “the Act”) of the Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Hyderabad.
2. The order of detention states that with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial of the maintenance of public order, the Commissioner of Police was satisfied that it was necessary to make an order of detention in exercise of the powers conferred on him by S. 3 sub-section (3) of the Act read with the order of Government in G.O.Ms. No. 221 General Administration (General-A) Department dated 15-6-1982, and accordingly directed the detenu to be detained and lodged in the Central Prison. Hyderabad. The detenu was detained on 20-8-1982 and the grounds of detention and other documents referred to in the grounds were served on the detenu on 24-8-1982 with Hindi version thereof within the time prescribed and a report was also sent to the Government on 20-8-1982.
The grounds of detention read as follows :-
“You are a man of criminal back-grounds and in the habit of indulging in lawlessness and violent activities terrorising peace loving citizens. You are posing as a Pahalwan and Rowdy and considered as a Daada in the area Begam Bazar Sultan Bazar and Abid Circle. To watch your behaviour and the said activities Rowdy Sheet is being maintained for you at Police Station, Shah-Inayath Gunj.
On 18-8-1982 at about 5.45 p.m. when on Praveen Kumar was standing in front of Milk Shop on the Main Road at Jam Bagh, you and your two associates viz., (1) Mohandas (2) Prabhakar came in an Ambassador car and attacked Praveen Kumar with sticks terrorising the entire locality declaring that Court did not punish him but you would punish him. You and your associates caused sever bleeding injuries on his head and other parts of the body. Praveen Kumar has been admitted in Osmania General Hospital, as an inpatient, one Venkat Giri who came to the rescue of the victim Praveen Kumar was also attacked by you and your above named henchmen. For this Act, a case in Crl. No. 275/82 under S. 307 I.P.C. has been registered at P.S. Sultan Bazar and being investigated into. The investigation so far made established that you voluntarily attacked the said Praveen Kumar who is a member of Kotha Dass gang, to kill him and to show your strength of your supremacy over the gang of Kotha Das with vengeance. Your high-handed action in a public and busy locality cause panic in the locality and the peaceful residents in the area like shop keepers, fruit vendors closed their business and shut themselves inside, thus bringing the normal life to a standstill.
Thus, you have been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order by your Rowdyism and acts of violence and goondaism affecting the even tempo of life of the community. Your above activities show that you are a dangerous and desperate character. Hence, I am satisfied that you are a fit person to be detained, to prevent you from acting in an aforesaid manner, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. According I passed the order of detention against you 20-8-1982.
You have a right to make a representation against the said orders of detention, to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. If you desire to make a representation, you may do so and sent it through the Superintendent of the Jail in which you are lodged. Your case will be placed before the Advisory Board within the stipulated time, and if you choose to submit your representation if would also be considered by the Board if you so desire.”
The detenu was furnished with the following papers :
“F.I.R. In Cr. No. 275/82 at Sultan Bazar Police Station relating to the incident mentioned in para 2 of the grounds of detention, which took place on 18-8-1982.
(2) Statement of Praveen Kumar.
(3) The panchanama conducted by the Inspector of Police, Sultan Bazar Police Station on 19-8-1982.
(4) Rowdy sheet maintained in respect of the detenu at Shah Inayat Gunj Police Station, Sultan Bazar Division.
3. In this writ petition, it is contended by Sri Padmanabha Reddy, that the grounds mentioned in Para I of the order of detention are vague and general, and that the specific grounds mentioned in para 2 of the grounds of detention relates only to individual attack on a member of another gang, and that the rowdy sheet furnished to the detenu relates to incidents which are either non-existent or vague and that the incidents mentioned in the rowdy sheet relate only to black-marketing and smuggling, and that none of the grounds of detention have any relevancy to public order and, therefore, the order of detention is illegal and unsustainable.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that there was only one ground do detention and that paras 1 and 2 should be read together, and that para 1 and the rowdy sheet maintained by the police department merely set out not grounds of detention, but only certain facts relating to the criminal propensities of the detenu and, therefore, the grounds are neither vague nor irrelevant and, hence, the order do detention is valid and proper.
5. Under S. 3(2) of the Act, a person can be detained if the State Government or the person authorised under sub-section (3) is satisfied with respect to such person that with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In the instant case, the order of detention is made with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
6. It was held in Ram Manohar v. State of Bihar that “public order” comprehends disorders of less gravity than those affecting Security of State”, “law and order” also comprehends disorders of less gravity than those affecting ‘public order’, and that an act may affect law and order but not public order, just as an act may affect public order but not security of the State. In P. Mukherjee v. State of W.P. it was held that :
“A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act but a disturbance which will affect public order comes within the scope of the Act.”
7. Relying on the aforesaid decisions Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner; contended that the specific ground mentioned in para 2 of the grounds of detention as well as the incidents referred to in the rowdy sheet furnished to the detenu merely constitute minor breaches of peace which primarily injure specific individuals, and that it does not affect the community or the public at large and, therefore, does not have any relevance to public order.
8. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor contends that the detenu along with his associates attacked Praveen Kumar with sticks terrorising the entire locality declaring that Court did not punish him, and that he would therefore, punish him, and that he voluntarily attacked the said Praveen Kumar who is a member of Kotha Dass gang, to kill him and to show his strength of supremacy over the gang of Kotha Dass with vengeance, and that his high handed action in public and busy locality caused panic in the locality, and the peaceful residents in the area like shop keepers, fruit vendors closed their business and shut themselves inside, thus bringing the normal life to a standstill and that the ground mentioned in para 2 affects the public order as it affects public safely and tranquillity in the locality.
9. In A. K. Ghosh v. State of W.P. it was held that :
“The allegations in the grounds of detention leading to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority contemplated under the section must not be irrelevant to what is contemplated in it. But to determine the relevance or otherwise of the grounds they must be read as a whole and not in parts, one isolated from order.”
10. But, it is necessary to find out as to what was the grounds that operated on the mind of the detaining authority in arriving at the satisfaction required by S. 3(2) of the Act before passing the order of detention. In the instant case, Para 1 of the grounds of detention as well as para 3 of the counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Police show that he detaining authority relied upon the past conduct and antecedents of the detenu for arriving at the satisfaction that with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was necessary to detain the detenu. The rowdy sheet and other material papers were furnished to the detenu along with the grounds of detention showing thereby that para 1 read with the rowdy sheet also constituted one of the grounds of detention.
11. Sri Padmanabha Reddy submitted that some of the incidents mentioned in the rowdy sheet are irrelevant or non-existant and they have no bearing on public order and that, therefore, the order of detention is bad. Items 1 and 2 of the “Conviction particulars” mentioned in the Rowdy Sheet read as follows :
"S. No. Petty Case No. Brief nature of the offence and date conviction details, Court and C.C. Number Police Officers present. 1. Cr. No. 12/77 On 15-2-77 this rowdy along with his Under Section 324 IPC brothers Abhimanyu and Laxminarayana alias Bhaiya assaulted one Devi Lal S/o Ganesh Lal, 35, years, R/o Begum Bazar with stick and fist blow resulting in bleeding injuries and dislocation of the two teeth of the victim. Later on the case has been compromised vide C.C. No. 128/77 dated 27-9-77. 2. Cr. No. 216/80 On 15-6-1980, Kishan Lal along with his Under Section 148, 324 associates murdered Sohan Lal at Lal and 302 IPC of Bahadur Stadium. The case is P.T. in Saifabad P.S. the Court of Session. The case is acquitted."
12. Sri Padmanabha Reddy submits that Item 1 related to an incident which took place in February, 1977, more than 5 years prior to the order of detention, and that it related only to an attack on an individual, and that too, it ended in a compromise, and therefore, it has no relevance at all to public order. Item 2 related to an offence of murder of Sohan Lal by Kishna Lal and his associates which ended in acquittal, and the detenu was not charge-sheeted in the said case and, therefore, that also could not have been made a valid ground for detention. Similarly, it is submitted that other incidents referred to relate to either black-marketing or smuggling and have no relevance on public order. We think this submission is well-founded. No doubt, the past conduct and even the acts of black-marketing and smuggling can also form the basis for detention if they have any bearing on public order. But, in the instant case, the incident mentioned in item 1 of the “Conviction particulars” in the rowdy sheet relates to past incident and has no bearing at all on the public order. The detenu was not charge-sheeted in the case referred to in Item 2 of the rowdy sheet. The fact that some other persons were charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 148, 324 and 302 IPC and that they were acquitted would not constitute a valid ground for detention of the detenu.
13. The learned public prosecutor relied upon the decision in Nishi Kanta v. State of W.B. where it was observed as follows :-
“If the past conduct and the antecedents of the person concerned reveal a tendency to do an act referred to in Clause (d) (of the W.B. (Prevention of Violation) Activities Act, 1970), the order of detention would be upheld, even though because of some supervening clause like prompt action by the police, the public order is not actually disturbed.”
14. But, in that case, the grounds of detention mentioned several acts of attack by the detenu and his associates by hurling bombs and explosives, and also the recovery of the highly explosive bombs and some explosive materials from the detenu and his associates. It was held that the said grounds were germane to the purpose for which detention order could be legally made. The facts of that case are wholly different and, therefore, that ruling is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
15. The learned public prosecutor contended that in the instance case, one of the grounds of detention is that the detenu belongs to a factious group opposed to the gang of Kotha Dass and, therefore, the detenu and his associates were seeking to take revenge on the gang of Kotha Dass, by showing their strength of supremacy over that gang, and that this is causing panic in the locality and affecting public peace and, therefore, the order of detention in valid. But as already mentioned by us, apart from the grounds mentioned in Paras 1 and 2 of the grounds of detention, the rowdy sheet also constituted one of the grounds of detention, and we have held that the incidents referred to in Items 1 and 2 of the Rowdy Sheet do not have any bearing on the public order, and that the detenu was in no way connected with the second item mentioned in the Rowdy Sheet. If so, the said incidents could not constitute valid grounds for detaining the detenu. It is well established that even if a single ground of detention is stale or vague or irrelevant, it vitiates the entire detention order, vide Shiv Prasad v. State of M.P. .
16. The learned Public Prosecutor has invited out attention to the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration , where in order of detention was made under the Act as the detenu was involved in four cases of robbery of jewellery and cash in different dates. In that context, it was observed as follows (at 1196-97 of Cri LJ) :-
“What essentially is a problem relating to law and order may due to sudden sporadic and intermittent acts of physical violence on innocent victims in the metropolitan city of Delhi result in serious public disorder. It is the length magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular act of violence creating disorder that distinguishes it as an act affecting public order from that concerning law and order. Some offence primarily injure specific individuals and only secondarily the public interest, while others directly injure the public interest and affect individuals only remotely. The question is of the survival of the society and the problem is the method of control. Whenever there is an armed hold up by gangsters in an exclusive residential area like Grater Kailash, Kalkaji or Lajpat Nagar and persons are deprived of their belongings like a car, wristwatch or cash, or ladies relieved of their goldchains or ornaments at the point of a knife or revolver, they become victims of organised crime. There is very little that the police can do about it except to keep a constant vigil over the movements of such persons. The particular acts enumerated in the grounds of detention clearly show that the activities of the detenu cover a wide field and fall within one contours of the concept of public order.”
17. In that case, the detenu was alleged to be involved in all the four incidents of robbery and the said grounds were not irrelevant or vague or remote whereas in the instant case, as we have mentioned earlier, the incidents 1 and 2 mentioned in the Rowdy Sheet are either irrelevant or non-existent and have no bearing on public order. Therefore, the aforesaid ruling does not apply to the facts of the present case. We therefore, hold that in the instant case, as two of the incidents mentioned in the Rowdy Sheet are irrelevant or non-existent and have no bearing on public order, the order of detention is illegal and unsustainable.
18. We should not be understood as having laid down any principle that the rowdy sheet or the entries therein cannot be taken into consideration by the detaining authority for arriving at the statutory satisfaction under S. 3(2) of the Act for making an order of detention of a person. If the said rowdy sheet and the entries therein have a bearing on public order and if the incidents or acts mentioned in the entries are not stale but proximate, and not vague but specific, and are relevant to public order, they may in appropriate cases form proper and valid ground for arriving at the satisfaction under S. 3(2) of the Act for making an order of detention against a person with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order. Our decision is, therefore, confined to the facts of the present case, as we have come to the conclusion that two of the incident mentioned in the rowdy sheet are unrelated to public order, the order of detention stands vitiated.
19. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police on 20-8-1982 against the detenu is declared as illegal, and we direct the detenu to be released forthwith, Advocate’s fee Rs. 250/-.
20. Petition allowed.