Important Point
It is well settled that cases affecting the public order are those which have great potentiality to disturb peace and tranquillity of a particular locality or disturb the even tempo of the life of the community of that specified locality.

Judgment

Dalveer Bhandari, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.This appeal is directed against the Judgment of the High Court of Madras passed in Habeas Corpus Petition No.1677 of 2007 on 29th April, 2008.

3.The detenu has challenged the detention Order under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) passed vide Order No. 360/07 dated 28.8.2007.

4.The detenu is involved in a land grabbing case registered at St. Thomas Mount Central Crime Branch Cr. No. 70/2006 under sections 420, 465, 468 read with 471 and 120(B) IPC and the said case is pending trial before the court. Subsequently another case was registered against the detenu during 2007 in Central Crime Branch, Chennai City X Crime No. 364/2007 under sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468 read with 471 and 120(B) IPC for the offence of land grabbing and his activities are said to have been adverse to the interest of the land owners and prospective buyers. The modus operandi of the detenu in both the cases is land grabbing in a clandestine manner. The detaining authority had considered the said aspect and came to the conclusion that in case the detenu is let out on bail he would again indulge in similar type of offences and, therefore, it is imperative to detain him. The Order of detention came to be passed keeping in mind the welfare of public who are owning lands as well as the prospective buyers.

5.It may be pertinent to mention that a number of bail applications of the detenu were dismissed and he was already in jail on 28.08.2007 when the detention Order was served on him.

6.The detenu made a representation on 14.9.2007 to the Secretary and the Advisory Board seeking revocation of the detention Order, which was rejected on 14.10.2007. Thereafter, the detenu filed a Habeas Corpus petition seeking quashing of the detention Order. The said petition was dismissed on 29.04.2008. The detenu aggrieved by the said Order preferred a special leave petition before this court. In pursuance to the notice issued by this court, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent.

7.Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned counsel appearing for the detenu submitted that the detention Order passed against the detenu is illegal and unsustainable in law. The detention Order is based on aforementioned two criminal cases. According to the detenu, all allegations incorporated in both the criminal cases if taken to be true even then the detenu cannot be said to have indulged in activities prejudicial to the public Order.

8.It was contended by the detenu that the grounds of detention are based on cases pertaining to law and Order problem. The distinction between ‘law and Order’ and ‘public Order’ has been very clearly defined in a catena of Judgments of this court. The clear legal position which emerges from the number of Judgments of this court clearly leads to the definite conclusion that if allegations are taken to be correct even then the activities of the detenu do not fall in the category of cases affecting the public Order.

9.Mr. Ahmadi also submitted that the High Court has seriously erred in not properly appreciating the distinction between “law and Order” and “public Order” and rejected the habeas corpus petition preferred by the detenu.

10.Mr. Ahmadi further contended that three bail applications preferred by the detenu were rejected and no bail application was pending when the detention Order was passed, therefore, the apprehension expressed by the detaining authority that there was imminent possibility of detenu likely to be released on bail was merely ipse dixit of the detaining authority without any material on record.

11.Mr. Ahmadi submitted that the detention Order ex facie is arbitrary, illegal, mala fide and passed with an oblique motive. He also contended that the State because of wrongful detention has deprived the detenu