An order of detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, is valid if the Detaining Authority is satisfied that the enlargement on bail of the detenu would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

( 1 ) - In this Habeas Corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the subject matter of challenge is the order of detention dated 29-1-1999. Annexure-1 of the writ petition passed by the District Magistrate. Varanasi-respondent No. 2 by invoking the provisions of Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act. 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The said order was approved by the State Government-respondent No. 1 on 6-2-1999. The petitioner made a representation dated 11-2-1999 through the Jail Superintendent-respondent No. 3, which was sent to the State Government by - the District Magistrate respondent No. 2 on 16-2-1999. The representation of the petitioner was rejected on 20-2-1999. After the receipt of the recommendations of the Advisory Board, the respondent No. 1-confirmed the detention order on 5- 3-1999. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Mr. Vinod Prasad learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mahendra Pratap learned A. G. A appearing on behalf of the respondents.

( 2 ) THOUGH the detention order has been challenged on a variety of grounds. Mr. Vinod Prasad appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, confined his submissions only to the two points firstly. That it was at best a case of breach of Tlaw and order and not of public disordert and, therefore, the District Magistrate, Varanasi had no jurisdiction to pass the detention order under Section 3 (2) of the Act, and secondly, there has been inordinate delay in disposal of representation of the petitioner by the State Government with the result the detention order shall stand vitiated. Both these submissions have been repelled by the learned A. G. A.

( 3 ) THE order of detention came to be passed in the wake of following facts:

( 4 ) ONE Raju who belongs to Muslim community covered the distance between Rewdi Talab and Bagadia, Varanasi in the tempo driven by Shambhu Sonkar on 21-1-1999. It appears that Raju refused to pay the hire charges which resulted in a wrangle. On the next day, i. e. on 22-1-1999 at about 10 a. m. , the present petitioner and their associates went to the house of Shambhu Sonkar; hurled abuses at him and pelted brick-bats with the result Shambhu Sonkar was injured. The glass-panes of the tempo were also broken. The petitioner and his accomplices left the place threatening Shambhu Sonkar with dire consequences. A case Crime No. 24/99 under Sections 147/ 323/ 504/ 506/ 336/427, IPC was registered on the F. I. R lodged by Shambhu Sonkar. From the side of the petitioner, one Lutful Sheikh lodged an F. I. R giving a cross-version which gave rise to Crime Case No. 24/ Al 99 under Sections 147/323/504/506 IPC at P. S. Bhelpur, Varanasi. At the relevant time, S. H. O. , Bhelpur was away to make arrangements for Saraswati Puja. At 10. 20 a. m. , he got an information that the incident aforesaid had given rise to communal disharmony and the members of the two rival groups were indulging in slogan shouting. Anyhow, the crowd was brought under control.

( 5 ) ON 22-1-1999 itself, at about 9. 30 p. m. one Mangal Ram Varma and his son Ajay Kumar Varma were going together and when they reached Asfaq Nagar turn, a few persons from the crowd mounted an assault and inflicted knife injury on Ajay Kumar Varma saying that he was a Hindu. An F. I. R of the incident was lodged by Mangal Ram Varma giving rise to Crime Case No. 26 of 1999 under Section 307, IPC at P. S. Bhelpur. Ajay Kumar Varma was medically examined without loss of time. Injury report indicated that he has received grievous injury in the region of his neck and that some sharp object was used for the purpose. No person was named in the F. I. R. During the course of investigation names of the present petitioner, Bhaiyan alias Shamim, Raju alias Nanku son of Jamaluddin and Mohd. Israil came to light. An entry was made in the general diary at SI. No. 57 at 11. 30 p. m. on 22-1-1999. The present petitioner was sent to jail in conne