MALLA ALIAS MADAN SETHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner questions the legality and validity of the order of his detention under S. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short 'the Act').

(2.) The aforesaid order of detention is challenged on various grounds including the ground that the incidents affecting ordinary breach of law and order have been taken as the basis for detention of the petitioner as a security prisoner with the sole object of frustrating his release on bail. Another ground taken is that the representation of the petitioner has not been considered expeditiously and ultimately the same was rejected after two and half months which is violative of the mandate of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed.

(3.) The State of Orissa as well as the detaining authority, i.e., the District Magistrate, Ganjam, has filed their counter-affidavits in support of the order of detention and has taken a stand that the detaining authority after being satisfied subjectively and after proper application of mind passed the order of detention as a preventive measure with a view to apprehend the objectionable activities of the petitioner. It is further stated that the activities of the petitioner were proximate in time and prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention are as per Annexure-1 series to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the State with reference to the grounds of detention submits that the activities of the petitioner were diabolic in nature affecting the public order, peace and tranquillity. The said grounds of detention also indicate involvement of the petitioner in several incidents and in some cases no reports were filed before the police authorities with a motive to keep the gang-war out of the purview of the law and order enforcing authorities. In some cases also, even after release on bail, the petitioner accelerated his criminal activities with more vigour and, therefore, in order to curb the criminal activities of the petitioner, which are prejudicial to the public order, there was no other way than to detain the petitioner under the provisions of the Act. A Bench of this Court while rendering a decision in O.J.C. No. 3414 of 1999 (Pahali alias Surendra Singh v. State of Orissa), disposed of on 30-7-1999, observed that the distinction between the areas of "law and order" and "public order" is one of degree and extent of the reach of the act in question on society. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. If a contravention in its effect is confined only to a few individuals directly involved as distinct from a wide spectrum of public, it could raise the problem of law and order only. In the case at hand, from the activities of the petitioner, which have been highlighted in the grounds of detention, it reveals that these are prejudicial to the maintenance of "public order" and not relatable to "law and order", as sought to be made out by the learned counsel for the detenu. Hence, in our view, this is not a case of "law and order" but a case of "public order". There is nothing to disagree with the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and accordingly we hold that this being a case of "public order", the order of detention is justified.