Order

This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is filed by the wife of one Imran Ahmad alias Kheer, who has been detained under the National Security Act, 1980 by the order dated 27.4.97 under challenge. The petitioner challenges the Order of Detention substan­tially on the ground that the Grounds of Detention do not have any nexus to the maintenance of public order. It is also contended that there was inordinate delay in considering the repre­sentation of the detenu by the concerned autho­rities.

2. The above complaints in the petition are denied by the respondents by filing a Counter Affidavit.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respond­ents.

4. We have been taken through the Grounds of Detention. We find, on a careful consideration of the same, that the main cause for action appears to be an alleged incident which took place on 16.2.97 at 7.00 p.m. in the house of one Vijai Chaudhary, a resident of House bearing No. 54, Sarai Zeena. According to the respondents, the detenu along with three other companions looted gold ornaments, watches and cash amounting to Rupees one lac thirty thousand from the said house of Vijai Chaudhary be wielding knives and pistols. The other grounds based on this incident related to alleged threats held out by the detenue himself or through his agent while he was put in jail. No incident is mentioned in the Grounds of Detention which has no rela­tion with the main incident that took place on 16.2.97 at the house of Vijai Chaudhary. For the main incident and the incidents connected with that, those were supposed to have taken place on 3.4.97 and on other dates, appropriate criminal cases had been filed and the detenu was arrested and impri­soned. Factually, when the detention order was passed the detenu was in prison and on the basis of apprehension that the detenu would be bailed out and the detenu would indulge in several criminal activities, the impugned order of detention was passed under Section 3(2) of the Act.

5. As we have pointed out earlier, none of the acts mentioned in the Grounds of Detention relating to the main incident can be considered as acts by the detenu which are prejudicial to the maintenance of “public order”. They all relate to `law and order’ problem which has been booked appropriately under the relevant provisions of the Penal Code.

6. In this connection, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Smt. Angoori Devi for Ram Ratan v. Union of India & Ors.1. This Court in that case had occasion to consider the fine distinguishing feature between ‘Public order’ and ‘law and order’. This Court observed as follows:-

“The impact on “public order” and “law and order” depends upon the nature of the act, the place where it is committed and motive force behind it. If the act is confined to an individual without directly or indirectly affecting the tempo of the life of the community, it may be a matter of law and order only. But where the gravity of the act is otherwise and likely to endanger the public tranquillity, it may fall within the orbit of the public order. This is precisely the distin­guishing feature between the two concepts. Sometimes, as observed by Venkatachaliah, J. in Ayya alias Ayub v. State of U.P.: “What might be an otherwise simple `law and order’ situation might assume the gravity and mischief of a ‘public order’ problem by reason alone of the manner or circumstances in which or the place at which it is carried out.” Necessarily, much depends upon the nature of the act, the place where it is committed and the sinister significance attached to it.

As for example dare-devil repeated criminal acts, open shoot out, throwing bomb at public places, committing serious offences in public transport, armed persons going on plundering public properties or terrorising people may create a sense of insecurity in the public mind and may have an impact on “public order”. Even certain murder comm