Judgment

DUA, J. :- In this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution the petitioner Shri Nagen Murmu challenges the order of his detention dated December 24, 1971 made by the District Magistrate, Midnapore under S. 3, sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2), of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971 (hereinafter called the Act). The detenu was arrested pursuant to the order of detention on December 29, 1971 on which date the grounds of detention were also served on him. This fact was reported to the State Government on December 30, 1971 and the detention order was approved by the State Government on January 4, 1972. The detenu s representation was received by the State Government on January 10, 1972 and was considered by it on February 19, 1972. The grounds on which the detention order was passed are :

"1. That on the midnight of 13/14-10-69, you along with nearly 200 others armed with a gun, bows and arrows, tangis and other deadly weapons raided the house of Jiban Krishna Das of village Jotdaris, P. S. Debra, shot the house owner to death, looted cash and ornaments worth about Rs. 2300/- and set fire to his house.

2. That on 22-6-70 at about 04.00 hours, you and some of your associates including Gourkhai Mandi of Chakmrityunjay, P. S. Debra, were found present without any reasonable excuse in the house of Bankim Chandra De of Shibarampur P. S. Debra at the time of recovery of a stolen gun from this place. This gun belonged to Shri Kanai Lal Kauity of village Saldahari, P. S. Debra and it was forcibly taken away on 1-10-69 by the Naxalites."

Ground No. 2, in our opinion, is wholly irrelevant and extraneous to the object or purpose of the detention order. Merely because the petitioner and his associates were found present without any reasonable excuse in the house of Bankin Chandra De at the time of the recovery of the stolen gun alleged to belong to Kanai Lal Kuity of village Saldahari from whom it had been forcibly taken away on October 1, 1969 by the Naxalites could by no stretch be considered to be an act in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is indeed beyond our comprehension how any officer fully understanding the concept of maintenance of public order could consider the petitioner s mere presence at the place of the incident to be an action raising the problem of the public order. It appears that the detaining authority had not fully grasped the distinction between the concept of public order and of ordinary law and order or of ordinary violations of law. This distinction has been clearly brought out in a number of decisions of this Court to which it is unnecessary to refer in detail on this occasion (see Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, (1966) 1 SCR 709 and Sudhir Kumar Shah v. Commr. of Police, Calcutta, AIR 1970 SC 814. Public order has repeatedly been described by this Court to be the even tempo of the life of the community taking within its fold even a specified locality and a substantial section of the society as a whole. It may be pointed out that the object of making the impugned order of detention was to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. If, therefore, the mere presence of the petitioner in the house of Bankim Chandra De as alleged in ground No. 2 cannot be considered to be an act prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the possibility of repetition of such an act could by no means be considered to fall within the purview of S. 3 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act.

2. Coming to the first ground the incident which is the subject matter thereof is said to have taken place on the midnight of October 13/14, 1969. The impugned order was made on December 24, 1971, more than two years thereafter. This, in our opinion, is far too remote for the purpose of raising any rational and reasonable inference of any apprehension of a repetition of such an act so as to justify the petitioner s detention. It may be pointed