Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, J.: - By this petition for the writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner challenges an order of detention dated April 2, 1973 passed by the District Magistrate, Monghyr with a view to preventing the petitioner from "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community"

2. The grounds of detention served on the petitioner on April 6, 1973 are divided into two parts, the first part referring to acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the second to those prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.

3. Two out of the three grounds mentioned in the first part read thus:

"(b) On 20-1-71 at about 2 A.M. he and his brother, Garib Sao were leading two trucks with stolen Railway property in a car bearing No. WBJ 6949. On the railway crossing near Jammu Rly. Station other standing trucks on the road caused a bottleneck in his hurried journey. This led to a clash and his men assaulted the truck drivers and threatened them with fire arms. Some 15 of his men were arrested then and there by the Police with the help of the public while he managed to escape along with his brother in the car bearing No. WBJ 6948. This car is registered in the name of his brother Reabig Sao. A case was registered in this connection vide Lakshmipur P. S. Case No. 9 (1) 71 dated 20-1-71. (c) He assaulted Shri Ram Singhasan Rai, Asstt. Suptd. Commercial Taxes; Intelligence Branch Bhagalpur who had gone to his factory in course of his duties and discharge of his legal obligations as Asst. Supdt. Commercial Taxes Intelligence Branch and in connection therewith he has been arrested in Jamalpur P. S. case No. 21 dated 29-8-72 u/s 148, 333, 307, 325 etc. I.P.C."

4. These acts may raise problems of law order but we find it impossible to see their impact on public order. The two concepts have well defined contours, it being well established that stray and unorganised crimes of theft and assault are not matters of public order since they do not tend to affect the even flow of public life Infractions of law are bound in some measure to lead to disorder but every infraction of law does not necessarily result in public disorder. As observed in Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, (1969) 2 SCR 635 (at p. 642) a line of demarcation must be drawn between serious and aggravated forms of disorder which directly affect the community or injure the public interest and the relatively minor breaches of peace of a purely local significance which, primarily injure specific individuals and only in a secondary sense public interest In Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, (1966) 1 SCR 709 at p. 746 Hidayatullah J has expressed this concept picturesquely by saying that one has to imagine three concentric circles: law and order represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest circle represents the security of State. "Law and Order" comprehends the disorders of less gravity than those affecting "public order" just as "public order" comprehends disorders of less gravity than those affecting "security of State".

5. The facts set out in ground (b) of the first part refer to no more than a stray and simple fracas arising out of a traffic bottleneck on a public street. Those set out in ground (c) refer to an assault of a public servant, undoubtedly reprehensible if true, but not of the kind that would reasonably affect public order.

6. Thus, two of the grounds on which the order of detention rests bear no rational connection with "public order" in interests of which the petitioner was ordered to be detained. This court in Pushkar Mukherjee s case, (1969) 2 SCR 636 observed:

"that it is well established that the constitutional requirement that grounds must not be vague must be satisfied with regards to each of the grounds and therefore even if one ground is vague and the other grounds