SUMANTA ROUT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application calls in question the legality of the order dated 2.11.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur in N.S.A. Case No. 1 of 2002 directing detention of the petitioner under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 under Annexure 1 as well as the order dated 20.12.2002 passed by the State Government confirming such detention in Annexure 4.

(2.) CASE of the petitioner is that he was working as Auto Rickshaw driver and was implicated in some cases where the actual culprits were unknown. On 18.6.2002 the petitioner surrendered before the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur in G.R. Case No. 836 of 2001 and his prayer for bail having been refused he was remanded to judicial custody. While in judicial custody in the aforesaid case, he was served with the impugned notice in Annexure 1 along with grounds of his detention. After receipt of the grounds of detention the petitioner made a representation to the Chairman of the National Security Advisory Board but the same was rejected and his detention was confirmed by the State Government in Annexure 4. Though the petitioner had also made representation to the Central Government he has not received any intimation with regard to the orders passed on the same. The petitioner challenges the order of detention on the following grounds :

(3.) FURTHER contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Keeping in mind the nature of offences alleged, it can only be said that there was contravention of 'law and order' and not 'public order'. The question what will constitute 'public order' and what will not was examined by this Court in the case of Tilatama Parida v. State of Orissa, reported in (1997) 13 OCR 377. This Court while deciding the question observed that whether a particular act or acts amounts or amount to breach of 'public order' or 'law and order', one must ask the question as to whether such act or acts leads or lead to disturbance of current life of the community so as to constitute disturbance of public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquillity of the society undisturbed ? This question has to be faced in several cases on different facts. This Court further observed as follows :