The detaining authority must establish a clear nexus between the individual's activities and disturbance of public order to justify a detention order.

VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) UNDER challenge in this writ application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is Annexure 1 constituting the order of the District Magistrate, Giridih, dated 5-7-2001 whereby and whereunder, being satisfied on the report of the S. P. and the annexure contained with the said report, in the interest of public order passed under Section 12 (2) of the Bihar Crime Control Order directing that the petitioner will be detained in Giridih Jail for three months.

( 2 ) GROUNDS on which the said detention order have been challenged are (i) it was wholly unjust, improper, unlawful and without authority, (ii) in violation of the principle of natural justice, (iii) violation of the Article 20 and 21 of the Constitution, (iv) in the absence of imminent possibility of any disturbance of the public tranquillity and in the absence of serious danger at the instance of the petitioner, the impugned order could not have been passed, (v) the impugned order is vitiated because it was passed without giving any opportunity of filing representation against the proposed detention and accordingly unlawful (vi) non-application of judicial mind while passing the impugned order and (vii) the grounds shown for his detention are wholly extraneous and baseless. In the writ application, prayer has also been made for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order and pending disposal the operation of the impugned order be stayed, which was passed in CCA case No. 10 of 2001.

( 3 ) IN short, the petitioner has pleaded that all the cases i. e. Dhanwar P. S. Case No. 16/2000 under Section 144/379, IPC, Dhanwar P. S. Case No. 146/1999 under Section 341/323/379/365/34, IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and Dhanwar P. S. Case No. 160/1999 under Section 144/379, IPC, which have been cited as the ground for passing the impugned order, were not sufficient ground for the order that has been passed because in Dhanwar P. S. Case No. 146/1999 the petitioner was granted bail and the learned Sessions Judge had observed that no offence under Section 364, IPC was made out and in Dhanwar P. S. Case No. 16/2000, the informant was his own maternal uncle and that case was compromised and the other case being Dhanwar P. S. Case No. 160/1999 was filed by his own maternal brother and that case also ended in compromise. On these basis the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that these cases were filed by the relations and ended into compromise then merely one case i. e. Dhanwar P. S. Case No. 146/1999 remains, in which he has been granted bail and there could have been no occasion and scope for conclusion that the crimes aforesaid attributed to this petitioner were actually the crimes which could bring the accused-petition under the definition of anti-social element under the Act and his activities as potent danger for the public order. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that there is no application of mind by the detaining authority. Rather the petitioner came with a case that the petitioner is an active worker of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and therefore, on the prayer of Janardhan Vishwakarma, who belongs to another political party, at his instance and because of his political influence upon a Minister of the State of Jharkhand, the impugned order has been passed.

( 4 ) IN the course of argument, the impugned order was challenged merely on the ground of non-application of mind in passing the impugned order by the detaining authority and (ii) there not being any nexus between the activities of the petitioner and the public order. ( 5 ) BESIDES the State of Jharkhand, the Dy. Commissioner, Giridih, S. P. , Giridih and the Officer-in-charge, Dhanwar P. S. were made the respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively.

( 6 ) COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS have been filed by the respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Giridih and the S. P. , Giridih, respondent No. 3. Besides general averment that