IMPORTANT POINT
If an act affects the tempo of public tranquility it certainly affects public order, otherwise it would be an act affecting the law an d order which can be dealt with by the executive and in that event relating 10 law and order, the order of detention cannot be passed u/s. 3(2) of National Security Act, 1980.

JUDGMENT

B.L. Yadava, J. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 15-2-1985 passed under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short the Act) by the District Magistrate, Deoria. The impugned order has been passed on the basis of the grounds that the District Magistrate was satisfied that with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order the detention of the petitioner was inevitable.

2. The grounds of detention as required by section 8 of the Act were communicated to the petitioner. Those grounds translated in English read as follows: -

(i)      On 3-4-1983 at 10 a.m. in Kachchli Hatta Crossing of Barhaj Bazar you along with your friends killed Rudra Pratap Singh @ Attal. As a result thereof the persons in the market ran away and the market remained closed for a number of days. Crime No. 91/83 under Sections 147/148/149/302 I.P.C. was registered and the charge-sheet was submitted to the Court on 6-7-1983. The case is still under consideration. You have threatened the witnesses of the case and they are not daring to come to depose in Court.

(ii) On 2-3-1984 at about 6 a.m. on the road going from Barhaj to Suneri you along with your associates attacked Rudal Singh with rifle, gun etc. and thereby injured seriously Kamal Kishore Singh, Sattan Singh, Ashutosh Singh and Rudal Singh. On account of injuries Ashutosh Singh and Sattan Singh died on the spot and Kamal Kishore Singh died in the hospital. As a result thereof the entire Bhulwani-Barhaj Road remained closed. A case (Crime No. 24 of 1984) under Sections 147/148/149/301/302 I.P.C was registered and the charge-sheet was submitted. On account of your influence the witnesses are not daring to depose in Court.

(iii) On 11-12-1984 at about 4 p.m. you armed with fire-arms created terror at the time of' the market by firing from country made pistol, thereby a terror was created in the locality and people ran away leaving the shops and the residents closed their doors and Mail Barhaj Road was closed for hours together and after police reached people came out of their houses.

3. The petitioner was also directed to make a representation against the order of detention to the appropriate Government. The petitioner had made the representation to the State Government which was in fact placed before the Advisory Board, constituted under Section 9 of the Act. The grounds of detention were also placed by the State Government before the Advisory Board as required by section 10 of the Act. The Advisory Board after bearing the petitioner, as provided under Section 11, submitted its opinion to the State Government to the effect that there was sufficient cause for continued detention of the petitioner. This is how the petitioner is in continued detention.

4. We have heard Sri Sidharath Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Girdhar Malviya, learned counsel for the State.

5. Sri Shukla urged that section 5-A as added by Ordinance No. 6 of 1984 (with effect from 21-6-1984) was invalid, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution, the petitioner was not beard by the Advisory Board, that ground Nos. 1 and 2 were of the period of 3-4-1983 and 2-3-1984 but no order of detention was passed during 1984 and as late as on 15-2-1985 the order of detention has been passed. Those grounds are stale and have no nexus with the opinion formed by the District Magistrate leading to the order of detention. It was also urged that in any case these grounds did not make out a case for maintenance of public order, rather these were the grounds relating to the law and order and were illegally made the basis of the order of detention which was beyond the scope of Section 3(2) of the Act.

6. Sri Malviya urged that Section 5-A of the Act was not invalid, that in Ashok Dixit. v. Union of India and others1 a Full Bench of t