MOHAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the detenu himself under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the order of detention passed against him by the second respondent, Commissioner of Police, Madras City, under Sec.3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bottleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act 14 of 1982, with a view to preventing him from . acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(2.) MRS. R. Subadradevi, learned counsel for the petitioner, canvassed before us that the facts of the ground case attributed to the petitioner do not constitute acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, they are only acts detrimental to the maintenace of law and order and hence the provisions of Sec.3(1) of the Act have no application.

(3.) THE distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' is fine, but real. The distinction lies in the gravity of the act committed by the detenu. In Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration, 1982 M.L.J. (Crl.) 124: A.I.R 1982 S.C. 1143, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court observes: 'The true distinction between the areas of 'public order' and 'law and order' lies not in the nature of quality of the act, but in the degree and extent of its reach upon society. The distinction between the two concepts of 'law and order' and 'public order' is a fine but this does not mean that there can be no overlapping acts similar in nature but committed in different contexts and circumstances might cause different re-actions. In one case it might affect specific individuals only and therefore touch the problem of law and order, while in another it might affect public order. The act by itself therefore is not determinant of its own gravity. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the ven tempo of the life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.'