The main legal point established is that the law of preventive detention should not be used to detain an accused person who can be adequately dealt with under ordinary criminal law. The judgment also emphasizes the distinction between breach of law and order and disturbance of public order, highlighting the impact of an act on the community at large.

( 1 ) THE petitioner Suresh Chandra Katre alias Sulli seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus for being set at liberty on quashing the order of detention dated 10-10-2000, Annexure 2 to the petition, passed under S. 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by District Magistrate Etah. Against the order of detention, which was duly served upon the petitioner, he made a representation on 19-10-2000. It was forwarded along with para-wise comments of the District Magistrate with letter dated 20-10-2000 and was received by the State Government on the next day, i. e. 21-10-2000. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board by the State Government on 17-10-2000 well within the period of 21 days to be reckoned from the first date of actual detention. The Advisory Board found that there was sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner. After taking into consideration the recommendations of the Advisory Board and other material on record, the detention of the petitioner. After taking into consideration the recommendations of the advisory Board and other material on record, the detention of the petitioner for a period of 12 months was approved. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected and there was no delay in forwarding and processing it by the competent authority.

( 2 ) TO challenge the order of detention, as well as continued detention, three points have been canvassed beefore this Court. They are : (i) that the order of detention of other detenu Sanjai Member has been revoked by the State Government and since the grounds for detention of the petitioner are almost the same, he is also entitled to be released an ground of parity. (ii) that the incident in respect of which the petitioner has been detained does not pertain to disturbance of public order and at best, it can be treated as an instance of breach of law and order and consequently, the provisions of S. 3 (2) of the Act could not be invoked, and (iii) that the petitioner was denied the reasonable opportunity of making effective representation on account of the fact that the relevant and material documents which were required to be supplied to him were not delivered. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.

( 3 ) HEARD Sri D. N. Wali, assisted by Sri Ashok Kumr Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Tripathi, Additional Government Advocate, for the State of U. P. as well as Sri Suresh Mani Tripathi for Union of India, at considerable length.

( 4 ) THE first ground that the order of detention of the petitioner is required to be revoked on the ground of parity is not available to the petitioner. It is well established proposition of law that in a case of detention, the plea of parity cannot be canvassed as sometimes, the grounds of detention may be entirely different or revocation of detention order is necessitated on account of the fact that the advisory Board has not found sufficient ground for the detention. On this point, there is a Full Bench decision of this Court in Chandresh Paswan v. State of U. P. 1999 A. J. C. 327 (1999 All. LJ 1167 ). It is true that the order of detention of Sanjay Member, detenu has been revoked by the State Government. We had called for the relevant files which were produced before us. Supplementary counter affidavit of Sri R. S. Agarwal, Special Secretary, Home and Confidential Department, Government of U. P. , Lucknow has also been brought on record. It is stated that the detention order of Sanjay Member-a co-detenu was revoked under the provisions of S. 12 (2) of the Act as in the opinion of the Advisory Board, there was no sufficient cause for his detention. Sub-sec. (2) of S. 12 of the Act reads as follows:-"12 (2) In any case, where the Advisory Board has reported that there is, in its opinion, no sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the appropriate Government shall revoke the detention order and cause the person concerned to be released fort