The detention order under the National Security Act, 1980 must be based on valid grounds and supported by acceptable materials. Violations of reporting requirements and discrepancies in documents can lead to the quashing of the detention order.

P. MURGESEN, J

Challenging the order of the detention, the mother of the detenu has filed the petition. The detenu was detained by the second respondent Commissioner of Police by his detention order No.05/NSA/2008 dated 211. 2008, under Section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (Central Act 65/1980) read with the order issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1170/Public (Law and Order - F) Department, dated 10. 2008 under Sub Section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged and stressed five grounds in support of his stand to show that the detention order is vitiated. According to him there is no disturbance to public order. So, the stand of the detaining authority that the detenu has to be detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future is not correct. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court in Dipak Rose v. State of W.B. reported in (1973) 4 Supreme Court Cases 43 and in Angoori Devi v. Union of India reported in AIR 1989 SUPREME COURT 371 and argued that there is no disturbance to public order.

3. In Dipak Rose v. State of W.B. reported in (1973) 4 Supreme Court Cases 43 the charge was that the petitioner kidnapped one Kashinath Saha of West Putiary, P.S. Behala and killed him at K.M.Naskar Road, P.S.Jadavpur and there by created panic and terror in the locality. The Honourable Supreme Court was of the view that two individuals who were the victims of the alleged two assaults, and therefore, do not appear to be relevant grounds affecting the maintenance of public order for which only the power of detention under the Act is intended to be used. In that case it was further observed by the Honourable Apex Court that every assault in a public place like a public road and terminating in the death of a victim is likely to cause horror and even panic and terror in those who are the spectators. But that does not mean that all of such incidents do necessarily cause disturbance or dislocation of the community life of the localities in which they are committed. There is nothing in the two incidents set out in the grounds in the present case to suggest that either of them was of that kind and gravity which would jeopardise the maintenance of public order. So, since there was no disturbance to public order the detention order was set aside.

4. In Angoori Devi v. Union of India reported in AIR 1989 SUPREME COURT 371 the offence has been set to be committed under Section 392 r/w 34. So, the Honourable Supreme Court was of the view that there is no disturbance to public order. Further, the Honourable Apex Court has held that the impact on "public order" and "law and order" depends upon the nature of the act, the place where it is committed and motive force behind it. If the act is confined to an individual without directly or indirectly affecting the tempo of the life of the community, it may be a matter of law and order only. But where the gravity of the act is otherwise and likely to endanger the public tranquillity, it may fall within the orbit of the public order.

5. So far as this case is concerned, learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that it is case of communal class between two groups. One Chellappa was murdered due to property dispute and the detention order would show that the accused and the Chellappa belonged to different communities. As a result of the murder of Chellappa, even the tempo of the life of general public was disrupted at Bharathiyar Street, Tirunelveli Town and surrounding areas. Further the maintenance of public order was disturbed in the whole area. People inhabiting at Bharathiyar street stayed inside their homes fearing danger to their lives. Tense situation prevailed between the particular two caste people in Tirunelveli Town.

6. Nodoubt, Tirunelveli Town is a tense place and any incid