Detention orders passed under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, are valid if they are passed with a view to preventing the person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.

Rajendra and Ram Vilas have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against their detention orders dated 31st December, 1987 passed by Sri K. K. Sinha, District Magistrate, Farrukhabad, under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, praying to set them at liberty.

2. The aforesaid detention orders dated 31st December, 1987 were served on the petitioners in jail on the same day along with the grounds of detention. The orders of detention were approved by the State Government on 9th January, 1988 which was communicated to the petitioners on 11th January, 1988. The representations made by the petitioners against their detention were forwarded to the State Government by the District Magistrate. The Advisory Board heard the petitioners on 28th January, 1988 and gave its report to the State Government and the State Government once again examined the entire matter of the petitioners and confirmed the detention of the petitioners for a period of tewlve months from the date of their previous detention orders, dated 20th December, 1987 as mentioned in the counter affidavit of Sri Chandra Pal Singh, Upper Division Assistant in confidential Section 6, U. P. Secre tariat, Lucknow.

3. With the petition, copy of the grounds of detention of 23-12-1987 of co-accused Deshraj has been annexed as Annexure 9 saying that the grounds of detention of the impunged detention order dated 31- 12-87 in the case of each petitioner are similar to it with necessary modifications. The grounds of detention contained in Annexure 9 are reproduced below to have an idea of the grounds on which the petitioners have been detained by the impugned order under National Security Act.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that on 20th December, 1987 the District Magistrate had passed the detention orders which he revoked on 3 1st December, 1987 but on the same day and on similar grounds again passed the impugned detention orders hence they are illegal, malicious and pointer to the non-application of mind. He argued that the matter set up against the petitioners in the grounds does not involve public order as it only makes out an offence of theft which is an issue of law and orders.

5. The learned Deputy Government Advocate made a statement before us that the earlier detention orders dated 20th December, 1987 were passed on the grounds of the disturbance of public Order which have been revoked by the District Magistrate on 31st December, 1987 exercising powers vested in him under Section 14 of the National Security Act, and on the same day impugned orders were passed against the petitioners on the ground of disturbance of maintenance of supplies and service essential to the community.

6. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act reads as under :

"3 (2 ). The Central Government or the State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting any manner prejudicial co the maintenance of public order or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. "

7. The District Magistrate has filed the copies of the detention orders dated 31st December, 1987 along with his counter affidavit which are separately reproduced below relating to each petitioner because copies thereof have not been annexed with the petition by the petitioners :

8. It is thus not correct to say that the detention orders dated 31-12-87 were similar to the detention order dated 20-12-1987 which have been revoked by the District Magistrate on 31st December, 1987.

9. The question whether the grounds of detention involved disturbance of "public order" or of "law and order" is no more relevant as the detention orders have been passed with a view to preventing the petitioners from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services es