R.B.Lal, J. - (1.) ON a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges of the Division Bench, who heard this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition, the following question has been referred for the opinion of a third Judge. This is how this case has come up before me.
(2.) THE question referred is : - "Do the grounds of detention of the petitioner relate to 'public order or to law and order' - The petitioner is detained under an order of the District Magistrate, Kanpur (Dehat) dated 31 -12 -1981 passed under section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (briefly the Act), with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention of the petitioner is based on the following three grounds. No. 1. On 25th Dec. 1981 at about 6.30 p. m., the petitioner and his associate Onkar Singh held up Chandra Sekhar and Pati Ram residents of Mooda Khera, police station Sikandra District Kanpur Dehat, at pistol point on the public way known as Mughal Road near village Preetampura, while they were returning home after selling paddy in the market at Aurraiya, and forcibly relieved Chandra Sekhar of his cycle, gold ring, wrist watch and Rs. 700/ - cash and Pati Ram of his cycle and Rs. 525/ - cash and fired shots in order to' overawe them. When, on hearing the reports of gun shots, the witnesses came running and challenged, the petitioner and his companion ran away firing shots. On the basis of the report lodged by Chandra Sekhar at police station Sikandra, case no. 221 under section 394 IPC was registered on 25 -12 -81 at 9.10 p. m. which is pending investigation. No. 2. On 26th Dec. 1981 at 6 p. m. the petitioner and his companion Onkar Singh approached Dulare and Phundi Lal, eye witnesses of the occurrence of robbery mentioned in ground no. 1, while they were looking after their fields in the jungle of village Alampur, police station Sikandara, and by show of pistols threatened to kill them if they dared to give evidence against them in the robbery case. The petitioner and his companion also told these persons to give affidavits in court in four days saying that they had not seen any occurrence and they were not present at the scene and in case they failed to do so they would be killed. A non cognizable case under section 506 IPC was registered at police station Sikandra on 26 -2 -81 at 8.15 p. m. on the report of Phundi Lal. No. 3. On 27 -12 -1981 at about 5 p. m. the officer -in -charge police station Sikandra received information through a informer that some dacoits belonging to the gang of Lala Ram and Shri Ram would assemble at the house of the petitioner for committing dacoity and Onkar Singh would bring the gang. On receiving this information the Station Officer reached near village Anwa with police force and surrounded the house. At about 8 p. m. the informer gave information that the dacoits had come and were hiding in the house of the petitioner. The Station Officer challenged the dacoits and asked them to lay down arms and surrender. At this, 5 or 6 dacoits began to fire shots indiscriminately and ran towards the south. The police force also returned the fire, but the dacoits managed to escape taking advantage of darkness. The police force searched the house of the petitioner in his presence, and found only the petitioner and Onkar Singh present there. No member of the gang or illicit arm was available. The petitioner gave out that the dacoits had made a plan to commit dacoity at the houses of Nathe Ram and Chandra Sekhar Katyar in village Jamalpur and had assembled at his house in pursuance of that plan. He also admitted that the members of the gang of Lala Ram and Shri Ram often came to his house to take shelter and he helped them in every way and as a consideration for the same the dacoits paid him Rs. 200/ - or Rs. 400/ - now and then. The petitioner and Onkar Singh were arrested and on the basis of the oral report of the Station Officer of police station Sikandara case no. 225 under section 216 -A, IPC was registered on 28 -12 -1981 at 1.15 a. m. against the petitioner.
(3.) THE meaning of the expressions 'public order' and 'law and order' and the distinction between them, were brought out by the Supreme Court in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740, Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 1228, Wasiuddin Ahmad v. District Magistrate, Aligarh, AIR 1981 SC 2166 and a number of other decisions. THE principles laid down by the Supreme Court may be put thus. Any contravention of law always affects order, but there it could be said to affect 'public order' it must affect the community or public at large. Public order is the even tempo of the life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. Acts which affect individuals only and do not disturb the community to the extent of causing general disturbance of the public tranquillity, relate to the problem of 'law and order' only and not to 'public order'. THE true distinction between the areas of 'law and order' and 'public order' lies upon the degree and extent of reach of an act upon the community or specified locality. THE acts causing disturbance of public order need not necessarily differ in nature and quality from acts raising problems of law and order'. THE acts similar in nature but committed in different contexts and circumstances might cause different reactions. In one case it might affect specified individuals and, therefore, touches the problem of law and order only, while in a different setting it might affect public order. THE question whether an act affects 'public order' or 'law and order' only, has to be determined in each case, on a consideration of its own facts and circumstances. The question whether the grounds in the instant case relate to disturbance of public order or merely raise problems of 'law and order' should be decided in the light of the principles laid down In the Supreme Court decisions as Indicated above.;