Khanna, J. - (1.) Milan Banik petitioner was ordered by District Magistrate Burdwan to be detained under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (act 26 of 1971) with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In pursuance of the detention order, the petitioner was arrested on July 23, 1973. The petitioner has now filed this petition through jail under Article 32 of the Constitution for a writ of habeas corpus.
(2.) After making the detention order on June 1, 1973 the District Magistrate sent report to the State Government about his having made the detention order along with the grounds of detention and other necessary particulars. The State Government approved the detention order on June 12, 1973. The petitioner at the time of his arrest on July, 23, 1973 was served with the order of detention as well as the grounds of detention together with vernacular translation thereof. The case of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board on August 7, 1973. The same day the State Government received a representation from the petitioner. The said representation after being considered was rejected by the State Government on August 8, 1973. The representation was then forwarded to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board expressed the opinion on September 25, 1973 that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. On October 1, 1973 the State Government confirmed the detention order.
(3.) It has been argued by Mr. Narayana Rao who has appeared amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner, that the alleged activities for which the petitioner had been detained were not germane to public order. In this connection we find that according to the grounds of detention, the petitioner was being detained because in the opinion of the District Magistrate he was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as evidenced by the particulars given below: "1. On 8-5-73 at about 04.00 hrs. you along with your associates stopped the rickshaw of Sri Gopal Sharma on point of dagger while he was coming from Burdwan Railway Station towards Curson Gate and snatched cash Rs. 20/- and other valuables and escaped. Your commission of this highway robbery created panic amongst local people and thereby disturbed the normal avocation of life in the area 2. On 15-5-73 at about 04.30 hours you along with your associates Swapan Singh and others attacked Shri Aditya Mondal, a Bus conductor on B. C. Road, Burdwan and on the point of an open Bhojali robbed him of cash Rs. 30/- one wrist watch and other valuables and forced him to keep silent. Your such act terrorised the local people and created a sense of panic in their minds and as a result flow of life in the area was highly disturbed. Your such acts created a panic in the area and the local people were afraid to come out of door as usual and their normal avocation of life was disturbed." It would appear from the above that the petitioner and his associates committed robbery on point of dagger on a public road in Burdwan on two occasions in the month of May, 1973. The activities of the petitioner and his associates were of such a nature as terrorised the local people and created a sense of panic. On account of the above activities the local people were afraid to come out of their houses and follow the normal avocations of life. The activities attributed to the petitioner, in our opinion, have a direct nexus with the maintenance of public order because they had the effect of disturbing the even tempo of life of the people in the locality. The test for determining whether a particular activity affects law and order or whether it impinges upon public order is:Does it interfere with the current of life of the community so as to amount to disturbance of public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquillity of the society undisturbed in which case it would be an activity affecting law and order (See Kanu Biswas v. State of West Bengal, (1973) 1 SCR 546 . Keeping this test in view we have no doubt that the activities of the petitioner had the effect of disturbing public order.;