Judgment

SARKARIA, J. :- Magan Gope, petitioner challenges the validity of the order of his detention made by the District Magistrate, Purulia under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The order states that the detention has been made to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

2. The impugned order is founded on two grounds which run as under:

"1. On 1-11-73 at about 09-00 hrs, you along with your associates attacked Home Guard No. 900 Aswini Mohanti and 3 others of Layadi Home Guard Camp who were on cordoning patrol near Kashipur village, P. S. Joypur close to Bihar border when they arrested you with rice, Dalda, Kerosene Oil, wheat, which were being carried by you and threatened them with death and snatched away the seized commodities from their custody.

In consequence of your said activity which comes within the purview of sections 143/186/332/506, I.P.C. and 7 (i) (a) (ii) of Act X of 1 the maintenance of Public Order was disturbed.

The said activity thus attract sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971).

2. On 6-11-73 at about 19.00 hours, you along with your associates attacked the investigating Police Officer and his Police Party with deadly weapons and attempted to resist your arrest while they went to Sidhi village under Joypur P. S., District Purulia to investigate a case. You and one of your associates were arrested with deadly weapons.

These violent and dangerous activities on your part created terror and panic amongst the local people who were over-awed and thus you have disturbed Public Order.

In consequence of your said activity which comes within the purview of Sections 148/149, 307/506/186 I.P.C. the maintenance of public order was disturbed.

The said activities thus attract Sub-Clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971)."

3. The return has been filed by the District Magistrate who had passed the impugned order in which it is averred:

"I say that I made the detention order after being satisfied from the materials on records in support of the grounds of detention in question that with a view to preventing the said detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order, it was necessary to detain him...... I further say that the grounds furnished to the said detenu are the grounds on which I based my satisfaction for making the order of detention taking those grounds separately and collectively..."

4. The main contention of Shri Goswami, learned Counsel appearing as amicus curiae for the petitioner is that neither of the grounds of detention was relevant to Public Order. According to Counsel these incidents, at the most affect law and order . 1n support of his contention he has referred to Bakhtawar Singh v. State, (52 Cri LJ 17); Man Singh v. State, (1953 Cri LJ 120); Arun Ghosh v. State. of West Bengal (1970) 3 SCR 288 Kanu Biswas v. State of West Bengal (1972 Cri LJ 1006); Kishori Mohan Bera v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC 1749 and Shyamlal Chakravarty v. Commr. of Police, Calcutta, AIR 1970 SC 269.

5. In reply Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the State submits that in these criminal incidents, the petitioner had threatened and tried to obstruct public servants in the discharge of their duty. Whenever a criminal incident is accompanied by such threat or resistance proceeds the argument, it raises a problem of Public Order as distinguished from a simple problem of law and order. Reference in this connection has been made to (1972 Cri LJ 1006) (supra) Babul Mitra v. State of West Bengal, (1974 Cri LJ 395) and Indradeo Mahato v. State of West Bengal, (1973) 4 SCC 4.

6. Times out of number, it has been emphasised by this Court that since the Act gives extraordinary 955 powers to the Executive to detain a person without trial, meticulous compliance with