The judgment established the importance of distinguishing between law and order and public order, emphasizing the potential impact of an offense on public tranquility in reaching a decision.

This petition was filed by the petitioner Irshad for quashing the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Meerut, under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter) referred to as (nsa) on 16-4-2004.

2. The order was passed by the District Magistrate consequently on the abovesaid date as sponsored by the Station Officer, P. S, Mawana, on 15-4-2004 and recommended by the Circle Officer, S. P. (Rural) and S. S. P. , Meerut, on 15th and 16th instant. The petitioner submitted his representation on 18-5-2004 through Jail Superintendent. It was received in the office of the District Magistrate on the same day. It was sent to the S. S. P. , Meerut, for parawise comments, the same day. The comments were received from S. S. P. , Meerut on 19-5-2004. On the same day the representation alongwith the above comments, and the comments by the District Magistrate were sent to the State Government. In the meantime the State Government approved and confirmed the detention of the petitioner. The District Magistrate also forwarded the detenues representation of the above date to the Central Government through its letter dated 19-5-2004. The representation was received by the State Government on 20-5-2004. The State Government forwarded the representation along with the comments to the U. P. Advisory Board vide its letter dated 21-5-2004. The representation was finally rejected by the State Government on 25-5-2004. Detailed notes were prepared by the concerned section of the State Government on 21-5-2004. The Under Secretary, Home & Confidential Department, Government of U. P. , examined it on 21-5-2004 and thereafter forwarded the same to the Secretary. 22nd and 23rd May, 2004 being Saturday and Sunday,

the rest days, the Secretary examined it on 24-5-2004. It was submitted to the concerned authority in the State Government for final orders. As earlier said, on the very next date it was rejected. The rejection of the representation was communicated to the detenue through district authorities by the State Government by a radiogram dated 26-5-2004. Thus, there apparently was no delay, in disposal of the representation made by the State Government. No such grievance was, however, raised by the detenue before us.

3. The Advisory Board heard the petitioner in person and also considered his representation on 21-5- 2004, the date fixed by it for the hearing. The Advisory Board submitted its report to the Government expressing its opinion that there is sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner. It was received on 3- 6-2004 by the Government. After receipt of the Advisory Boards report his case was again re-examined in the light of the opinion of the Advisory Board. The detention order, thereafter, again was confirmed by the State Government.

4. The fact of submission of the representation and service of the detention order upon the petitioner along with all the relevant papers were confirmed by the counter affidavits of the Deputy Jailor, District Jail, Meerut. Rejoinders were filed to these counter affidavits by Abdul Waheed. The law was followed fully.

5. The brief facts giving rise to the impugned detention order are as under:

A young boy, aged 7 years, was kidnapped during the day at about 3. 00 p. m. on 28-2-2004 from his house. A report of Gumsudgi was lodged by the father of the boy at P. S. Mawana at 10. 30 p. m. In the meantime between the kidnapping and lodging of the report frantic search for the boy was made but it yielded no results. The father and his companions, who set out in search of the boy in the entire area, could not get any clue about him on that date. Normal report of Gumsudgi was taken down at the police station as & Daryaft Hal (DH ). The case in such cases is not generally registered in a regular manner initially. An enquiry in such matters is conducted first by the police. Consequently, when the informant could collect some information on 2-3-2004, he filed proper written report n