GHANCHI GAFAR BACHU Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is detained under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter to be referred to as Tthe security ActT) by an order of the District Magistrate, Bhavnagar, dated 21.7.1984, which order has been confirmed by the State Government by an order dated 17.9.1984. Annexure B. The petitioner was supplied with the grounds of detention as per Annexure, A. The petitioner challenges the order of detention on various grounds which are enumerated in the petition. The District Magistrate, Bhavnagar has filed affidavit-in-reply which is at pages 43 to 48.

(2.) So far as the grounds of detention are concerned, they relate to four different, incidents dated 7.7.1983. 5.4.1983. 18.3.1984 and 4.1.1984. Copies of the first information reports in, respect of three of these incidents are produced at Annexure C, D and F. Copy of the first information report relating to the incident of 18.3.1984 has not been placed on record of this petition. The grounds of detention supplied by the District Magistrate show that some persons had given their statements against the petitioner during the course of investigation. Copies of those statements are not produced by the, petitioner in this petition. On the other hand, affidavits, of those persons have been produced in this petition with a view to show that their statements were not correctly recorded by the Police Officer during investigation. Now, it is obvious that the affidavits of these persons which are filed in this petition before this Court cannot be looked into by us for any purpose whatsoever because we have to consider whether the District Magistrate had sufficient material on record to pass the order of detention; We, would, therefore, completely ignore these affidavits which are filed by the petitioner in this petition.

(3.) Now so far as the three first information reports are concerned, they only pertain to certain incidents. They themselves do not disclose that the alleged activities of the petitioner had anything to do with the maintenance of public order. Copies of the statements of Ashok Shivabhai Chavdas and others have been shown to us by the learned advocate for the, petitioner. We have gone through these statements and these statements do not disclose that the activities, of the petitioner had anything to do with the maintenance of public order. Looking to the contents of the lint information reports and the statement of Ashok Chavdas and others, it can be said that the activities of the petitioner related to maintenance of law and order, but we cannot say that they related to the maintenance of public order. Taking the contents of the first information reports as well as the contents of the statements of Ashok Chavda and others into consideration it is difficult to say that the District Magistrate had any material what so ever for reaching the conclusion that the activities of the petitioner had something to do with the maintenance of public order and it was necessary to detain him for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The District Magistrate has, of course, stated in the grounds of detention in the last paragraph that the activities of the petitioner had caused panic and atmosphere of fear in different localities. But this inference of the District Magistrate must be based on some material which material should be available to the petitioner as well as to this Court. Except the first Information reports and the statements of Ashok Chavda and others recorded by the Police Officer during the course of investigation, there was no material before the District Magistrate for reaching the conclusion that it was necessary to detain the petitioner for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Any such material if available to the District Magistrate has been supplied to the petitionerT and, therefore, we have to take it that the District. Magistrate has passed the order taking into consideration only the first information reports and the statements of Ashok Chavda and others. We have to consider whether the order can be supported as an order contemplated by section 3(2) of the Security Act, taking into consideration only the first information reports and the statements of Ashok Chavda and others. When we speak of public order, it must affect the community or the public at large, and there is difference between public order on the one hand and law and order, on the other. An act may affect law and order, but not public order. The true distinction between the areas of law and order and public order lies not merely in the nature of quality of the act but upon the degree and extent of its reach upon the society. The acts similar in nature but committed in different context and circumstances, might cause different reactions. In one case, it might affect specific individuals and, therefore, touches the problem of law and order only, while in another it might affect public order. The distinction between the two is one of degree and extent of reach of the act upon the society. Applying this test to the order of detention which is challenged in this petition, it is clear that the grounds disclosed that the activities of the petitioner related to the maintenance of law and order and not maintenance of public order.