LODHA, J. - (1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some considerable length.
(2.) The petitioner Subhan Mohammad has challenged the detention of his son Noor Mohammad by order dated 6th May, 1988 passed by the District Magistrate, Udaipur under the National Security Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and which has been confirmed by the State Government by order dated 7th July, 1988. 24 grounds have been mentioned in the grounds of detention which have been handed over to the detenu. The detenu's representation against those grounds was rejected by the Advisory Board. In these grounds, the first 11 grounds relate to the various criminal cases which are pending against the detenu from 1981 to date. They include two cases under S.307, I.P.C., two of theft; one under Ss.224, 225, 352, 353, I.P.C., one under Ss.384, 392 four under S.16/54 Excise Act, and one under Ss.153A, 295A, I.P.C. and S.25 Arms Act. The next 8 relate to cases which were filed against the detenu but in those the detenu had been acquitted on account of the fact that the witnesses turned hostile. Then there are cases in which proceedings under Ss.107 and 110, Cr. P.C. had been taken against the detenu and also one in which the detenu was externed from the district for six months. The last ground is that a petition has been filed by the residents of Udaipur showing that the detenu was a terror and a desperado.
(3.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that all these grounds go to show that they relate to only law and order situation and not disturbance of a public order and, therefore, on the basis of these grounds he could not have been detained. In our opinion, this contention is fully met by the decision of their Lordships reported in Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration, 1982 2 SCC 403, wherein the distinction in matters relating to law and order problem and that of public order problem has been clearly brought out. It has been pointed out that :- "13. The true distinction between the areas of public order and law and order lies not in the nature or quality of the act, but in the degree and extent of its reach upon society. The distinction between the two concepts of law and order and public order is a fine one but this does not mean that there can be no overlapping. Acts similar in nature but committed in different contexts and circumstances might cause different reactions. In one case it might affect specific individuals only and, therefore, touch the problem of law and order, while in another it might affect public order. The act by itself therefore is not determinant of its own gravity. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of the life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. That test is clearly fulfilled in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The prejudicial activities of the detenu leading to public disorder, as revealed in the grounds of detention, consist of a consistent course of criminal record. Although the criminal activities of the detenu in the past pertained mostly to breaches of law and order, they have now taken a turn for the worst. From the facts alleged it appears that the detenu has taken to a life of crime and become a notorious character. His main activities are theft, robbery and snatching of ornaments by the use of knives and fire arms. The area of operation is limited to South Delhi such as greater Kailash, Kalkaji and Lajpat Nagar. A perusal of the FIRs shows that the petitioner is a person of desparate and dangerous character. This is not a case of a single activity directed against a single individual. There have been a series of criminal activities on the part of the detenu and his associates during a span of four years which have made him a menance to the society. It is true that they are facing trial or the matters are still under investigation. That only shows that they are such dangerous characters that people are afraid of giving evidence against them. What essentially is a problem relating to law and order may due to sudden sporadic and intermittent acts of physical violence on innocent victims in the metropolitan city of Delhi result in serious public disorder. It is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular act of violence creating disorder that distinguishes it as an act affecting public order from that concerning law and order. Some offences primarily injure specific individuals and only secondarily the public interest, while others directly injure the public interest and affect individuals only remotely. The question is of the survival of the society and the problem is the method of control. Whenever there is an armed hold up by gangsters in an exclusive residential area like Greater Kailash, Kalkaji or Lajpat Nagar and persons are deprived of their belongings like a car, wrist watch or cash, or ladies relieved of their gold chains or ornaments at the point of a knife or revolver, they become victims of organised crime. There is very little that the police can do about it except to keep a constant vigil over the movements of such persons. The particular acts enumerated in the grounds of detention clearly show that the activities of the detenu cover a wide field and fall within the contours of the concept of public order." It has thus been pointed out that there is a very thin line between the question of law and order situation and a public order situation and some times the acts of a person relating to law and order situation can turn into a question of a public order situation. In this case it will be pertinent to note that the detenu appears to have been engaged in criminal activities almost of all sorts from 1979 to 1988. The cases include cases of offences under Ss.307, 224, 225, 332, 353, 384, 153A, 392, 295A, 120B, I.P.C. then there are cases under Arms Act and also cases under the Excise Act where illicit liquor to the extent of 625 bottles in one case had been recovered from him, they also include a case under S.302, I.P.C. and cases in which he has alleged to have raised slogan which may have spread communal hatred as also cases of other nature. As already stated above, he had also been externed from the district of Udaipur for six months. Therefore, the activities of the detenu cannot be said to be restricted only up to the extent of a question of law and order but they can easily be inferred to involve the disturbance of public order. In these circumstances the first contention must fail.;