A. PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) THE order of detention dated 18-8-1996 which is challenged in this habeas corpus writ, application has been passed by the District Magistrate, Pun in exercise of powers conferred by sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 3 of the National Security Act. 1980 (in short, the Act), with the view to prevent Prasad Bhola alias Durga Prasad Bhola (hereinafter referred to as detenu) from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The aforesaid detenu was directed to he interned in District Jail, Pun in pursuance of the said mittimus order of detention, and is at Annexu re-i to the writ application.

( 2 ) TWO points essentially have been raised in support of the writ application. Firstly, it is submitted that the alleged incident for which order of detention has been passed at the most may relate to law and order situations and not public order. Secondly, the requirement of giving an opportunity to the detenu for effective representation which flows from Art, 22 (5) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short, the Constitution) has been denied as the petitioner was not informed that he had a right to make a representation to the Central Government.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the State with reference to the records, which were produced before us, submitted that the incidents which formed the foundation for order of detention clearly show that by the acts of the petitioner-detenu even tempo of the society was disturbed, and public tranquility was affected. They created a fear psychosis in the minds of the citizens. There can be no doubt that public order was affected. Therefore, no vulnerability can be attached to the order of detention. So far as plea regarding non-intimation about the petitionerts right to make a representation to the Central Government is concerned, it is submitted that the statute neither provides nor mandates it.

( 4 ) ART. 21 of the Constitution having declared that no person shall be deprived of life and liberty except in accordance Twith the procedure established by law, a machinery was definitely needed to examine the question of illegal detention with utmost promptitude. The writ of habeas corpus is a device of this nature. Blackstone called it T1the great and efficacious writ in all manner of illegal confinement. The writ has been described as a writ of right, which is grantable ex debito justitae. Though a writ of right, it is not a writ of course. The applicant must show a prima facie case of his unlawful detention. Once, however, he shows such a case and the return is not good and sufficient, he is entitled to this writ as of right.

( 5 ) PREVENTIVE detention is not a punitive but precautionary measure. The object is not to punish a person for having done something, but to prevent and intercept him before he does it again. No offence is proved, nor any charge is formulated and the justification of such detention is suspicion or reasonability and there is no criminal conviction, which can only be warranted by legal evidence. Preventive justice requires an action to be taken to prevent apprehended objectionable activities. See Rex v. Nallidev, Mr. Kubic Bhariusz v. Union of India and others. That at the same time, a personts greatest of human freedoms, i. e. , personal liberty is deprived, and therefore, the laws of preventive detention are strictly construed, and a meticulous compliance with the procedural safeguards, however, technical is mandatory. The compulsions of the primordial need to maintain order in society, without which enjoyment of all rights, including the right of personal liberty, would lose all their meanings, are the true justifications for the laws of preventive detention. Sometimes the deprivation of personal liberty of individuals becomes imperative to protect the society from denigrating Laws that provide for preventive detention posit that an individuals conduct prejudicial to the maintenance of (a) supplies of commodities necessary for the community,