An act may be connected with public order even if it does not affect the community or the public at large, but it must affect the even tempo of life of the community and disturb the normal life of the general public.

JUDGEMENT

Misra, C. J. :- Challenge in this application under Art.226 of the Constitution is to the order dated 10-8-1981 made in exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 65 of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the District Magistrate (opposite party No. 2) and grounds of detention as given in Annexure-1 were communicated on 12-8-1981.

2. The five grounds were provided to the detenu in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 8 of the Act. Shortly stated, the grounds are :-

(i) On 9-2-1981 at 6 P.M. the detenu along with one Pradeep Kumar Patnaik alias Chandu armed with gupti entered into the college campus of Nirakarpur College and forcibly took away a Lambreita Scooter No. APV 7079 belonging to Sri B.K. Murty, Head of the Department of Physics of the said College from his residence in spite of protests and entreaties. The detenu found that the scooter was not in working order and carried it to a mechanic for repairs. The owner of the scooter along with other members of the staff reached the place, but all of them were helpless as the detenu had reputation of being a notorious and violent character. This incident spread a terror in the locality;

(ii) At about 3.30 A.M. in the night of 10-2-1981, the detenu along with Tukuna alias Manoranjan and Chandu alias Pradeep Kumar Patnaik came armed with Pharsa, sword and dagger and demanded of the santry constable No. 73 found at the Jatni Police Station to hand over the keys of the Police Hazat so that the detenu could kill one Milu alias Manas Ranjan Mohanty and another Hadu alias Birendra Kumar Mohanty who were inside the Hazat having been accused of offences. The detenu and his associates forcibly searched the person of the constable after putting him in fear of death. The constable called the constable inside the police station to open the door and after coming in bolted the same from inside. The datenu and his associates forcibly broke open the door entered inside the Hazat. At that point of time, the A. S. I. of Police Sri N.C. Mohanty and Constable No. 269 B. Majhi shouted for help by raising a hulla and the Officer-in-charge and others appeared on the scene. In the scuffle the A. S. I. sustained bleeding injuries.

(iii) While the detenu was on bail in a pending criminal case, at about 11 A.M. on 29-4-1981, he along with four or five persons armed with knives and guptis went to the shop of one Bijay Kumar Yadav of Ramchandrapur Bazar of Jatni and extorted Rs. 50/- from him under threat of life. This incident occurred in a busy market place in presence of many people of the locality and created panic among the law-abiding people. The detenu was arrested and charge-sheeted for offence under Sec. 384, Penal Code, but after he was released on bail, he threatened the complainant and again extorted Rs. 300/- from him as penalty for having reported to the police.

(iv) On 29-9-1981, the detenu along with one Sukanta Behera of Hatbazar being armed with sword, bhalla, gupti and knife attacked one Appa Rao and his associates who were equally armed and in the open market before the members of public, the two groups indulged in rioting untill the local police arrived. The local shop-keepers were terrified and were to close down their shops.

(v) During the night of 14/15-5-1981, the detenu armed with a sword went to Hatbazar grounds where a Palla (a music performance), was being held and shouted for one Bikram Jena whom he wanted to kill because he had given evidence against him. One of the local police officers arrived at the scene and tried to seize the sword, but the detenu attacked him and inflicted injuries.

3. The only contention in support of the petition raised by counsel for the petitioner was that grounds (i) and (v) were not connected with maintenance of public order and related to incidents which the ordinary law of the land could adequately deal with. Since these two grounds did not come within the ambit of Sec. 3(2) of the Act, and the law being t