GHANSHYAM PARMAR Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the order dtd. 04/11/2021 whereby the District Magistrate, Mandsaur by invoking Sec. 3 of National Security Act, 1980 (NS Act) detained the petitioner.

(2.) Shri Tugnawat, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset submits that petitioner is not assailing the decision making process pursuant to which impugned order of detention is passed. He categorically urged that the decision making process is in accordance with law. The singular point on which he assails the impugned order is that the impugned order, at best shows that petitioner has committed something which may be a 'law and order' problem and by no stretch of imagination can be treated to be an act of infringing 'public order'. It is submitted that petitioner has no criminal record. The Full Bench in its recent judgment in Kamal Khare vs. State of MP reported in 2021 (2) MPLJ 554 held that the 'law and order' and 'public order' are two different facets. If an act is in breach of 'law and order', the ordinary penal provisions are sufficient to take care of the person, who has breached the law. However, for invoking preventive detention law, the authority has to examine whether act is of that magnitude which affects the 'public order'. Reliance is placed on para 18 and 44 of the judgment.

(3.) To elaborate, Shri Tugnawat, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the grounds of detention dtd. 04/11/2021 shows that the singular reason assigned is that from the premises of petitioner, 328 bags of fertilizers were found. The petitioner did not have any licence. This act at best, as per contention of Shri Tugnawat, attracts 'law and order' and not 'public order'.