ORDER :

D.P. Madon, J.

This is an application for bail in the above Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of an order of detention made under section 5 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980, by the District Magistrate, Lucknow, on October 20, 1984. The Petitioner is a contractor. The grounds of detention consist of one single incident, the basis of which is a first information report lodged by one Surya Kumar, a tusiness rival of the Petitioner. The facts said to constitute the said alleged incident are that Surya Kumar submitted a tender for supply of ballast and his tender being lower than the Petitioner's was accepted while the Petitioner's tender submitted along with one- Subhas Bhandari was accepted only for the balance of the supply. About nine days later Surya Kumar was going in a car along with his brother-in-law. On the way he saw some other contractors and stopped the car to chat with then. Meanwhile the Petitioner along with some other persons, including the said Subhas Bhandari, came in two cars. The Petitioner was carrying a country made pistol and the others were carrying similar lethal weapons like revolver, guns and hand grenades. With a view to kill Surya Kumar they fired at him and threw hand grenades on his car. There was a hue and city in the midst of which Surya Kumar managed to escape. It is an admitted position that in spite of the fire let loose at Surya Kumar he did not suffer a single injury and it,. spite of the hand grenades thrown at his car there was no damages at all to the car. Surya Kamar then lodged a first information report. Thereupon a criminal case was registered against the Petitioner and the Petitioner was arrested. He applied for bail. In the said grounds of detention it is then stated as under :

"I have also come to know that on your behalf an application for grant of bail has been filed in the Competent Court. Therefore, in case you come out on bail from the jail you will again start activities causing breach of public order."

It is difficult to understand why, if such was the apprehension of the District Magistrate who passed the order of detention, he could not have asked the prosecution to oppose grant of bail to the Petitioner. But this simple remedy provided by law does not seem to have occurred to the District Magistrate and instead he resorted to the provisions of section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. It may be mentioned I that the Petitioner had filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, which was dismissed. Instead of filing a Petition for special to Appeal to this Court against the judgment and order of the High Court, the Petitioner has chosen to file this Habeas Corpus Petition. Mr. K.G. Bhagat, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, states that in order to obviate any technical objection the Petitioner will file or caused to be filed a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal against the said judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, along with an application for condonation of delay and for bail, and if bail is granted to the Petitioner in this Habeas Corpus Petition, he will pray that such bail should be treated also as bail in the said Petition for Special Leave to Appeal pending the hearing and final disposal of the notice on the bail application which may be issued in such Petition.

2. A notice was directed to issue on this Habeas Corpus Petition to the State of Uttar Pradesh returnable on July 8, 1985. Mr. Dalveer Bhandari, learned Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh has, however, applied for time to file a counter affidavit. It is difficult to understand what can be set out in the counter affidavit for the question here is of the validity of the detention order and the main contention is that at the highest, as shown by the grounds of detention, it is only a question of law and order and not of public order. I, however, cannot deny an opportunity