Sarkaria, J. - (1.) The petitioner, Ram Ranjan Chatterjee, challenges the order of his detention dated 8-12-1973 made under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, by the District Magistrate, Purulia. The order states that "with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do." It is founded on three grounds which run as under:"1. On 3-6-1973 at about 19.00 hrs. at village Kotaldi, a thickly populated area, under P. S. Santuri, District Purulia, you with your associates were illegally manufacturing bombs for unlawful purposes from dangerous explosive in your possession when an explosion took place causing fatal injury to one of your associates - Sova Gope (s/o Late Chandi Gope) of Kataldi, P. S. Santuri. You and your associates' act of preparing bombs presumably for criminal operations as given out by you and your associates and the explosion taking place in a thickly populated area, created panic amongst the local people and further threatened the local people with dire consequences even upto causing death, if they informed police of your above said activity. This act of you and your associates endangered public safety and tranquillity and were prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order. In consequence of your said activity which comes within the purview of Section 6 (3) of Indian Explosives Act 1884, (Act No. IV of 1884) the maintenance of Public Order was disturbed.
(2.) On 28-6-1973 at about 08.00 hrs. you with your associates armed with daggers and other dangerous weapons suddenly entered into the 'Grocery' of Shri Narayan Chandra Garai (s/o Harishikesh Garai) at Kistapur Bazar, P. S. Santuri and demanded commodities from his shop for which you did not intend to pay. On refusal of the shopkeeper (Shri Narayan Chandra Garai), you and your associates furiously attacked him (the shopkeeper) with daggers, threatening him and others present with instant death if they protested. Dismayed and overawed the shopkeeper (Shri Narayan Garai) and the customers fled away from the shop for fear of life. This violent act created consternation in the area and all the shops in the said bazar were closed down instantly as a consequence. Your activity jeopardised the normal life and free movement of the local people injuring public interest. Your activity thus attracts sub-cl. (ii) of Cl. (a) of sub-section (1) of S. 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971 (Act 26 of 1971). 3. On 3-7-1973 at about 08.00 hrs. you along with your associates armed with daggers and bombs surprisedly attacked one Siddique Sk. (s/o late Mahaffat Sk.) of Veti, P. S. Santuri (District Purulia) for extorting money from him (Siddique Sk.) for your personal expenses putting him under threat of immediate death. Apprehending danger Siddique Sk. and other present cried out for help when villagers rushed in. Being infuriated, you with your associates, murderously attacked them hurling recklessly dangerous bombs at these villagers who got panicky and fled away to save their lives. This violent act committed by you and your associates created alarm and anxiety amongst the local people, endangered security, affected the normal and rightful activities of their lives. The said activities thus attract sub-clause (ii) of Cl. (a) of sub-section (1) of S. 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971 (Act 26 of 1971)." 2. In response to the Rule Nisi, the officer who had passed the impugned order has inter alia averred: 'With reference to the incidents mentioned is, the grounds of detention I have been informed by the I. O. of the case that one criminal case and two G. D. entries were filed against the petitioner and his associates. Ground No. 1 relates to Santuri P. S. case No. 3 dated 5-6-1973 under Section 6 (3) of the Indian Explosives Act and Ground No. 2 relates to Santuri P. S. G. D. Entry No. 805 dated 29-6-1973 and the Ground No. 3 relates to Santuri P. S. G. D. Entry 76 dated 3-7-1973. The detenu was named in F. I. R. and G. D. Entries and was arrested on 27-9-1973 in connection with the first case as he was absconding and he was put in jail custody (intermediate). The petitioner was ultimately discharged from the cases on the prayer of the Police from the said first case on 4-4-1974 case not because there was no evidence against him but because this detenu being a dangerous person witnesses were afraid to depose against him in open Court. The order of detention passed by me was served on the detenu on 8-12-1973 when he was in jail custody. l say that the detenu was not illegally detained as alleged. All statements contrary to what has been stated hereinbefore are denied."
(3.) The first contention of Mr. K. K. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as amicus curiae, is that the three incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention are not relevant to the maintenance of "public order." According to Counsel, these incidents concern 'law and order" only. On these premises, it is urged that the impugned order is illegal. Support for this contention has been sought from the dictum of this Court in Dipak Bose v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC 2686.;