1. The petitioner has been ordered to be detained by respondent No.2, District Magistrate Srinagar, vide detention order No. DMS/PSA/53/2011 dated 26-12-2011, in exercise of powers conferred upon him under section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short Act of 1978). The petitioner has challenged the said order at pre-execution stage.

2. After notice, respondents have filed reply affidavit.

Mr. S.R.Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the grounds of detention relate to one incident for which F.I.R 40/2011 U/S 376/511. 451/506 RPC, Police Station Kralkhud, Srinagar, has been registered. Learned counsel submitted that one single alleged incident cannot have impact on the public order. In order to elucidate his submission, learned counsel submitted that the case, which has been registered against the petitioner, is under investigation of the concerned Police Station and the petitioner has been enlarged on bail. He further submitted that the normal law, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is sufficient to deal with the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the District Magistrate has abused his authority by invoking the provisions of the Act of 197". While making reference to section Sec. 8 the Act of 1978, learned counsel submitted that the expression "public order" has been defined by the provision of the statute and perusal thereof would show that the act alleged against petitioner is not covered by it and the single act attributed to him (petitioner) would not affect the public order. To substantiate the contention, learned counsel referred to and relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in case AIR 2009 SC 628; AIR 1989 SC 491; AIR 1966 SC 740; AIR 1970 SC 1228 and AIR 2003 SC 971. He, accordingly, prayed for quashing of the impugned order of detention.

Mr. N.H.Shah, learned Dy.AG, submitted that though the act, which is attrib#31;uted to the petitioner, is solitary in nature but it has an immense adverse impact on the public order. He submitted that the impact, the act of the petitioner would have on the society, was bound to affect the public order adversely and the detaining authority, in its wisdom, after applying its mind to the facts of the case, has rightly ordered for detention of the petitioner. In support of the contention, reliance was placed on the judgment of the High Court of Allahbad reported in 2005 Cr.L.J 1383 (FB) and 2011 Cr.L.J 4249 Orissa (DB). Ld counsel, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

3. Right to liberty is a basic human right, which is manifested in article 21 of the constitution of India. In civilized societies, which are governed by rule law, liberty of an individual has to be jealously and zealously guarded. In order to run the affairs in a civilized society governed by rule of law, an individual, however, also has certain duties and obligations to perform. He has to conduct his day to day affairs in accordance with the laws of the land, as the liberty of an individual guaranteed by the Constitution does not mean that he would have license to act and behave in the manner he wishes. Human history reveals that in higher Public interest, in one or the other form, human conduct has been regulated by written or unwritten norms. It is said that a human being has never been absolutely free. When in womb of the mother, he is tied by umbilical cord and when born, he remains naval bound to the society throughout his life.

4. It is said that a human being has both, human and animal instinct in him. The human instincts works for overall benefit of the society, whereas, the animal instincts provoke person to indulge in activities which cause great harm to the society at large. Some times the normal laws alone are not sufficient to deter a person from indulging in activities which cause immense damage to the public order or security of the State.

5. Sec. 8 (3) (b) (iv) of the Act of 1978 which defines Public Order is taken note of:-

"(iv) attempting

Click Here to Read the rest of this document