R.N.SAHAY, J.

1. In this batch of 22 criminal writ cases which have been heard together for convenience the only question for decision is as to whether the prosecution of the petitioners under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short TADA Act) is in, accordance with law. In other words whether the allegations against these petitioners constitutes offence under Section 3 (1) of the TADA Act.

2. The salient features of the Act have been considered in Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja, AIR 1990 SC 1962 :

"The Act was enacted to make special provisions for the prevention of, and forcoping with, terrorist and disruptive activities and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto Section 2 (d) defines the expression disruptive activity to have the meaning assigned to it in Section 4. Section 2 (h) defines the expression terrorist Act to have the meaning assigned to it under Section 3 (1) of the Act, the relevant part of Section 3 (1) provides that whoever with intent (i) to overawe the Government as by law established or (ii) to strike terror in the people or any section of the people or (iv) to adversely affect the harm