JUDGMENT
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.
1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order Annexure A, dated 6-11-2005 passed by Shri Vivek Agrawal, District Magistrate, Indore in purported exercise of the power conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 by which the detenu Kamal s/o Gulab has been detained under the provisions of the said Act. In pursuance of the requirement contained in Section 8 of the said Act, grounds of detention were furnished to the detenu vide Annexure B, dated 6-11-2005 on the same day. The order of detention is based on the following grounds:
¼1½ fnukad 22&9&2005 dks vkius ljcthrflag dks jkLrs esa jksddj xkfy;ka nh rFkk tku ls ekjus dh /kkSal nh ftl ij fkkuk jkoth cktkj ij vi-dz- 308@05 /kkjk 341@324@394@506@34] rk- fg- dk iathc) gksdj pkyku U;k;ky; esa is’k fd;k x;k] tks fopkjk/khu gSA
¼2½ fnukad 3&11&2005 dks vkius ukjk;.k /kuksjk ds yM+ds dey /kuksjk ds ?kj ij vius lkfFk;ksa ds lkFk gfFk;kj can gksdj igaqp dj mlds edku esa rksM+ QksM+ dh rFkk v’yhy xkfy;ka nsdj tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nh A vkids bl d`R; ls eksgYys esa Hk; o vkrad dk okrkoj.k fufeZr gksdj yksd O;oLFkk Hkax gks xbZ A fjiksVZ ij Fkkuk twuh bUnkSj ij vi-dz- 462@05 /kkjk 452@294@506@426@34 rk- fg- dk iathc) gksdj foospuk esa fy;k x;k A
2. Learned Counsel for the detenu submits that Section 3(2) permits detention of a person by the Central Government or the State Government only if it is satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing 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 or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, it is necessary so to do. Such a power can also be conferred upon the District Magistrate, and the Commissioner of Police in accordance with Sub-section (3) of Section 3 if the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in an area.
3. There is no dispute insofar as the power of the respondent District Magistrate to pass such an order by virtue of the authorization under Sub-section (3) is concerned. The contention of the learned Counsel is that the two grounds, individually and taken together, do not indicate that the alleged activities of the detenu related to any matter prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, therefore, the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, though subjective, is vitiated on account of the fact that the facts taken on their face value do not attract the provisions on which preventive detention is permissible.
4. The respondents have filed a return and the documents in support thereof. The respondents have stated that after the order was executed and the grounds of detention were furnished to the detenu, the case was sent to the State Government for approval which was received on 14-11-2005, within the period of 12 days as required. Report of the approval was duly made to the Central Government on 16-11-2005. The case was forwarded to the Advisory Board on 23-11-2005 and after receiving its opinion dated 13-12-2005 on 15-12-2005, the order was confirmed by Annexure R-7, dated 16-12-2005. Thus, the detention has been confirmed for a period of 12 months, i.e., upto 5-11-2006. As regards the grievance that the representation of the petitioner was not expeditiously processed and decided and, therefore, his right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution was violated, the respondents have pointed out that the representation was made on 31-1-2006 as per Annexure R-8, it was forwarded on 1-2-2006 as evident from Annexure R-9, it was received on 2-2-2006 and rejected on 6-3-2006. On the basis of the above data the learned Dy. AG has emphasised that the representation was expeditiously processed and decided.
5. Insofar as the representation is concerned, though the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the representation was signed by the petitioner in Jail on 21-1-2006, we are not satisfied that the representation was signed on the date stated by the learned Counsel and that it was kept by the Jail Authorities upto 31-1-2006. We do not find that the representation was kept back by the Jail Authorities and the delay has not been explained. We are, therefore, not impressed by the contention of the learned Counsel that the representation having not been expeditiously decided, the detention is vitiated.
6. The core question that arises in the present case is as to whether the two grounds on which the detention is based constitute valid basis for the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that to prevent the detenu from acting prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, his detention was necessary. The grounds communicated to the detenu have already been referred to above. The first ground relates to the commission of offences under Sections 341, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of the IPC. It is alleged that on 22-9-2005 the detenu detained Sarabjeet Singh, abused and intimidated him in respect whereof charge-sheet had been filed in the Court. Similarly the second ground refers to the felonious activity of the detenu on 3-11-2005 and it states that the accused had gone along with his companions to the house of Kamal Dhanora duly armed and had damaged the house and abused him. It is from these cases that it is stated that on account of the said Act of the detenu an atmosphere of fear and terror was generated and there was breach of public order. On that basis the case was registered under Sections 452, 294, 506, 426 and 34 of the IPC.
7. In relation to the above grounds, no materials has been placed on record to show that the effect and impact of the activities alluded to by the Detaining Authority was a situation of public order and not only law and order. We may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in State of U.P. and Anr. v. Sanjai Pratap Gupta and Ors. Supreme Court Case (Cri.) 366. Their Lordships have stated that public orders has a narrower ambit and public order could 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 a specified locality. The distinction between the areas of “law and order” and “public order” is one of degree and extent to the reach of the Act in question of society. From the grounds of the accompanying documents we do not perceive any situation affecting the public from the acts attributed to the detenu. Under these circumstances, the grounds on which the detention is founded, do not travel beyond the breach of “law and order” to constitute a ground with respect to breach of the “public order”. Thus, on each ground, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is vitiated as the objective criteria on which the satisfaction has been derived is lacking in its basic requirement: breach of public order.
8. From the above, we are of the view that detention of the detenu, Kamal s/o Gulab, is illegal. Accordingly, the order dated 6-11-2005 (Annexure A) is quashed. It is directed that the detenu be forthwith released from detention if not required in custody in connection with any other matter.