( 1. ) THIS is a p etition for a writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 2. ) THE petitioner carries on the businesss of embroidery at Naya Sarafa, Lashkar, Gwalior. On 29-10-1974, the District Magistrate, Gwalior, passed an order of detention against the petitioner under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide Annexure P-1. On 29-10-1974, the petitioner was furnished with the grounds of detention vide Annexure P-2. He submitted a representation against the order of detention to the Government. Thereupon, the case of the petitioner was referred to the Advisory Board. The Board approved the order of detention and, after considering the report of the Advisory Board, the State Government confirmed the order of detention. So far, the fact are not in dispute.

( 3. ) THE petitioner has challenged the order of detention on a number of grounds in this petition and has prayed that the order be quashed and the petitioner be set at liberty.

( 4. ) IN the return filed on behalf of the State it is submitted that the order of detention is definitely valid and justified and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

( 5. ) SHRI S. K. Dube, learned counsel for the petitioner, has challenged the detention on a number of grounds. The first point urged by him was that the alleged activities of the petitioner referred to in the grounds of detention may be considered as breaches of law and order, but they cannot be considered as pre judicial to the maintenance of public order within the meaning of sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act. There can be no doubt that there is a clear distinction between a mere contravention of law and the disturbance of public order. While dealing with a case of detention under rule 31 (a) (b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 in Ram Manohar v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 740) their Lordships abserved in paragraph 51 as under:

"the contravention of law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order it must affect the community or the public at large. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Defence of India Act but disturbances, which subvert the public order, are. "

( 6. ) IN Sudhir Kumar Saha v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta (AIR 1970 SC 814) their Lordships, while dealing with a case of detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 1960, held that maintenance of law and order is a conception much wider than the conception of maintenance of public order. Every act that affects law and order need not affect public order. public order is the even tempo of the life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality; and disturbance of public order is to be distinguished from acts directed against individuals which do not disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public tranquility.

( 7. ) IN Arm Gosh v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1970 SC 1228) their Lordships, while dealing with a case of detention under the Act, held that the question whether a man has only committed a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause a disturbance of the public order is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the act upon the society ; and an individual act can be a ground for detention only if it leads to disturbance of the current of life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order and not if it affects merely an individual leaving the tranquility of the society undisturbed. This decision was followed by their Lordships in Babulal Mitra v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1973 SC197 ).

( 8. ) IN Milan Banik v. The State of West Bengal (AIR 1974 SC 1214) their Lordships observed as under in paragraph 3, while dealing with the question of public order:

"the test for determi