S.R. Alam, C.J.

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

In the instant case the petitioner has questioned the validity of the order of the District Magistrate, Jabalpur, dated 4.8.2010 detaining the petitioner under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. Facts leading to filing of the writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner, because of his involvement in several criminal cases and his activities being prejudicial to the public order, is detained under section 3(2) of the Act. The prejudicial activities are stated in detail in the grounds of detention, a copy whereof is enclosed as annexure P/6.

3. It appears that the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur, vide memo dated 4.8.2010 informed the District Magistrate, Jabalpur, about the criminal activities and involvement of the petitioner in several criminal cases which are prejudicial to the public order as he is a habitual offender and has formed a gang and is in possession of dangerous weapons and explosives. It has also been alleged that the petitioner is accused in a murder case alleged to have been committed openly on the road and on many occasions he threatened of dire consequences to the general public. It has also been alleged that he used to terrorize the public by throwing country made bombs.

4. The District Magistrate having gone through the materials placed before him and having been satisfied that the activities of the petitioner is detrimental to the public order and, therefore, with a view to prevent and restrain him from his indulgence in the alleged prejudicial activities, passed the order under section 3(2) of the Act on 4.8.2010. The order of detention and the grounds of detention were accordingly communicated to the petitioner as per requirement of Section 8 of the Act. The Advisory Board also considered the order of detention as required under section 9 of the Act and approved the detention. The State Govt. also confirmed the detention order vide order dated 27.9.2010.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that on account of involvement of the petitioner in criminal cases, he cannot be detained under the provisions of the Act and the alleged activities of the petitioner have no impact on public order. It was further submitted that the allegations which have been levelled against the petitioner are vague in nature and at the most it would come within the realm of law and order. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Shishupal Singh Vs. The District Magistrate, Damoh, 2004 (2) A.N.J. 119.

6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.

7. At the outset we must say that we are not impressed with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner for the reason that the alleged prejudicial activities of the petitioner is bound to disturb the even tempo of the society and thus it is difficult to hold that the same does not fall within the purview of public order.

8. From perusal of the grounds of detention it appears that the petitioner is involved in number of criminal cases which are as follows:-

S.No.

Crime No.

Offences

1.

130/1999

302 I.P.C.

2.

73/2000

25 of Arms Act

3.

258/2000

341, 294, 506-B I.P.C.

4.

269/2000

5 of Explosive Substances Act

5.

270/2000

25 Arms Act

6.

466/2001

336, 427 I.P.C.

7.

586/2001

341, 323, 294, 506-B, 34 I.P.C.

8.

574/2001

307 I.P.C. and 3/5 of Explosive Substances Act

9.

182/2002

341, 294, 323 and 50 of I.P.C.

10.

292/2003

384 I.P.C.

11.

210/2005

25 of Arms Act

12.

273/2007

25/27 of Arms Act

13.

386/2008

341, 34 of I.P.C.

14.

288/2010

307 I.P.C.

9. It further appears from the grounds of detention that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is in a habit of committing serious crimes publicly. It has also been stated in the grounds of detention that he is in possession of dangerous weapons and explosives which has endangered the public safety. It has also been alleged that on account of his activities there is an atmosphere of fear in the locality and, therefore, the District Magistrate being satisfied with the material placed before him that the alleged activities of the petitioner are detrimental to the public order rightly passed the impugned order in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the public order.

10. The argument that the allegations or the alleged activities of the petitioner did not have any impact on the public order and, therefore, it is at the most case of law and order, hence detention is not justified, cannot stand. Public order is the even tempo of the life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality and it is to be distinguished from the acts directed against individuals which do not disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public tranquility. Therefore, to find out as to whether the alleged activities or the act comes within the purview of public order or it is simply a law and order problem, one has to find out the impact or its effect upon the life of the community and degree of disturbance in a locality (See : Arun Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal, : 1970(1) SCC 98).

11. In the instant case, we are of the considered view, that the alleged activities of the petitioner is bound to disturb the even tempo of the society and thus it is a case of public order and cannot be held to be a breach of law and order. Reliance placed in Shishupal Singh Vs. The District Magistrate, Damoh (supra) is of no help to the petitioner because in that case the detenue was involved in a case of pity nature and the alleged act since was directed against individuals, therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of public order whereas in the case in hand the petitioner has committed various offences even in public and also terrorized the people of the locality by throwing the country made bombs and such acts are bound to create fear in the minds of the people and is bound to disturb the normal life of the locality, hence it is a case of public order.

12. No other point has been urged before us.

13. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order of detention. The writ petition being without merit is dismissed without cost.