( 1 ) IN this writ petition filed by the petitioner for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order of detention dated 11th June, 2004 passed by the commissioner of Police, Delhi, the respondent No. 3 under Section 3 (2) of the national Security Act, 1980 as also the order of approval dated 18th June, 2004 communicated by the Deputy Secretary (Home) and has also prayed for setting the petitioner at liberty forthwith.

( 2 ) THE Commissioner of Police, Delhi, passed an order of detention against the petitioner on llth June, 2004 on being satisfied that it is necessary to make an order directing that the petitioner should be detained with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The said order of detention was passed by the Commissioner of police in the purported exercise of power conferred on him under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act. The aforesaid order of detention was served on the petitioner on 15th June, 2004. The petitioner was also served along with the order of detention, the grounds of detention along with documents which were supplied with a list of annexures. The aforesaid order of detention was approved by the State Government under its ordar dated 18th june, 2004. Both the aforesaid orders are under challenge in this writ petition.

( 3 ) THE counsel appearing for the petitioner, after referring to the grounds of detention, submitted before us that in the grounds of detention initially 23 incidents have been relied upon by the detaining authority to prove the past history of the petitioner and the said incidents relied upon are of the years 1985 to 2002. It was submitted that all the aforesaid 23 incidents, which are relied upon, relate to his past criminal activities, which were also subject matter of an order passed against the petitioner by the respondents under the National security Act on 8th October, 2002. It was submitted that the Advisory Board submitted an opinion in respect of the aforesaid order of detention to the State government and in the light thereof, the Lt. Governor of Delhi revoked the said order of detention dated 8th October, 2002 by his order dated 4th December, 2002. It was also submitted that in the present order of detention, the criminal activities mentioned in serial numbers 24 to 28 have been relied upon as ground for passing the order of detention against the petitioner. It was also submitted by him that out of the 28 criminal cases registered against the petitioner, he has been acquitted in 11 cases, discharged in six cases whereas one case has been cancelled and that eight cases are pending for trial and one case is still pending investigation against him. It was submitted that none of the aforesaid criminal cases, which were cited as grounds of detention, could be said to be an incident concerning and having potentiality to disturb the even tempo of the life of a community and thereby constituting acts prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. It was submitted that at the most the said incidents could be said to be incidents of law and order and not public order and, therefore,the order of detention is liable to be set aside and quashed. It was also submitted that the reference made in the order of detention to certain activities relating to narcotic cannot be relied upon as grounds of detention as it was imply referred to in the order of detention by way ot passing remark. It was also submitted that even assuming that the same could be construed as grounds of detention, the same was vague and uncertain and, therefore, no order of detention could be passed on such vague grounds.

( 4 ) COUNSEL appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that the petitioner even after his release from jail after revocation of his earlier order of detention, did not mend himself and remained actively involved in the