The use of the disjunctive 'or' in a detention order under Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 is invalid as it indicates that the District Magistrate was not sure in his mind about the precise ground of detaining the petitioner and mechanically reproduced the language used in the Act.

Sudhamay Basu, J. :- This Rule was obtained on an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Producer, for a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus. It relates to an order of detention dated the 20th of October, 1971 passed by the District Magistrate, Birbhum in exercise of the powers vested in him under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The detenu was taken into custody on and from the 29th of August, 1972 by virtue of the said order on the ground that he had been acting "in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State the maintenance do public order". The particulars given to the detenu as evidence thereof were as follows :

1. On 28-5-1971 between 20.30 hrs. and 20-45 hrs. the detenu along with others being armed with revolver, daggers bombs and other lethal weapons raided the house of gun licensee Sk. Abdul Motleb. S/o late Md. Unnas of Haripur P.S. Suri and forcibly took away his S.B.B.L. gun No. 42117. This created serious panic and terror in the locality.

2. On 28-5-1971 around 21-30 hrs. the detenu along with others being armed with deadly weapons broke open the doors of the house of gun licensee Sk. Esfan Ali S/o. Hazi Sk. Rahim of Haripur, P.S. Suri and took away forcibly his D.B.B.L. Gun No. 58 by putting him in fear of instant death. This created serious panic and terror in the locality.

2. It further appears that on the said 29th August, 1972 a corrigendum to the detention order was issued by the District Magistrate concerned which reads as follows :

Government of West Bengal Office of the D.M. Birbhum.

No. 4201-C Dated 29-8-1972.

"For the words the security of the State or the maintenance of public order appearing on my above order please read the maintenance of public order given under my hand and seal of office".

Sd/-

District Magistrate Birbhum, 29-8-1972.

3. Mr. Narayan Mukherjee the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State placed before the Court the relevant details from which it would appear that with reference to the said order dated the 20th October, 1971 the statutory requirements under the Maintenance on Internal Security Act, were duly complied with. Nobody appeared on behalf of the detenu who filed this petition from the jail. When the Court pointed out to the learned advocate appearing for the State that the order of the District Magistrate showed that his satisfaction was on the alternative grounds which meant that he was not certain whether he had reached his subjective satisfaction on the ground of danger to public order or danger to security of the State, the learned Advocate stated that the corrigendum later on issued by the District Magistrate cured the irregularity if any of the original order. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mukherjee appeared as amicus curiae and was of considerable assistance to the Court.

4. So far as satisfaction of the detaining authority on the alternative grounds under the Maintenance of internal Security act is concerned, the question has been finally settled by the Supreme Court, in the case of Kishori Mohan Bera v. State of West Bengal reported on AIR 1972 SC 1749, Shelat J. referring to the cases of Dr. Lohia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740 = (1966 Cri LJ 740) and Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 852 = (1970 Cri LJ 852) noted the differences between the concepts of law and order, public order and the security of the State and analysed the basis of the alternative satisfaction. He pointed out the three fictional concentric circles, the largest representing the law and order the next representing public order and the smallest representing security of the State. Every infraction of law must necessarily affect order, but an act affecting law and order may not necessarily also affect the Public order. Lik