JUDGMENT This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Rajdeo Narayan is directed against the order dated the 14th of May, 1974 (annexure 1) passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur (respondent no. 2) under section (3) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for the detention of the petitioner, According to the said order the petitioner was taken into custody on the 14th of May, 1974. As stated by him in his petition, he is an advocate practicing as a lawyer in Muzaffarpur. As provided under section 8 of the Act, the petitioner was furnished with grounds on the 18th of May, 1974. The relevant portion of the grounds, as given in annexure “2” of the application reads as under :- 1. That Sri Rajdeo Narayan is affiliated with the Sanyukta Socialist Party and is a strong supporter of the students Agitation. 2. That on 13.5.74, a Congress (R) procession was scheduled to be taken out from Tilak Maidan but he worked like an explosive amongst the students and in the midst of the students, he announced that the procession should not be allowed to be taken out even at the cost of their lives. He along with others collected about 1000 students who all squatted before the exits of Tilak Maidan Congress office in order not to allow the procession to be taken out and come on the road, though he was himself not a student, was found in the midst of the students and found instigating the students. They all created such situation that orders U/s 144 Cr.P.C. had to be promulgated at once in order to disperse the assemblage to avoid any untoward incident, which had become quite imminent at that moment. He was directly abetting the students action against the proposed procession before the Government officials and had created situations, which would have culminated in lathi charges and firing, but for the promulgation of orders u/s 144 Cr. P. C. 3. That on 14. 5. 74 he was found moving in the Chhoti Saraiyaganj Mohalla along with Suresh Pd. He was directly abetting the students action against the proposed procession before the Government officials and had created situations, which would have culminated in lathi charges and firing, but for the promulgation of orders u/s 144 Cr. P. C. 3. That on 14. 5. 74 he was found moving in the Chhoti Saraiyaganj Mohalla along with Suresh Pd. Aehal, Binay Bhushan Sinha and others and were directing the shop keepers to close their shops in support of the students agitation on 15.5.74, when they have decided to observe 'Muzaffarpur Bund" as per the decisions taken by them in their meeting on 13 5.74 in the B. B. Collegiate school. They also threatened the shop keepers that if they will not close their shops they would come on 15.5.74 and would get the shops closed even by force. 4. It would, therefore, appear that Sri Rajdeo Narayan Advocate is a potential instigator and danger to peace and his actions are such that are directed towards getting the lives of the people miserable by getting the shops closed as well as the conveyance and transport stopped. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that if he is allowed to remain at large, he will indulge in activities which are detrimental to the public peace and tranquility, for the prevention of such activities I consider his detention necessary." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ground nos 3 and 4 are vague, as they lack particulars in order to enable the petitioner to make effective representation. Under ground no. 3, learned counsel submitted, the words "shop keeper" are vague. No particular has been given by respondent no. 2 in the said ground as to which of the shop keepers in Mohalla Saraiyaganj were directed by the petitioner to close in support of the students agitation on the 15th of May 1974. Similarly, in ground no 4 no particular is given as to whose transport and conveyance were to be stopped by the petitioner and in this paragraph also no detail of particulars regarding the shops to be closed are given. In our opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded. That apart, we find that in the concluding portion of the grounds respondent no. In our opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded. That apart, we find that in the concluding portion of the grounds respondent no. 2 has mentioned, "In the circumstances, I am satisfied that if he is allowed to remain at large, he will indulge in activities which are detrimental to the public peace and tranquility.." We have already observed in our judgment dated the 1st of July, 1972 in Mahanth Shyam Sunder Das vrs. The State of Bihar and other (Cr. W. J. C 83 of 1974) that in the ground also instead of the phrase "public peace and tranquility" ought to have used "Maintenance of public order" as required under section 3 (a) (ii) of the Act. In that view of the matter the impugned 'order contained under annexure 1 cannot be substantiated. 3. In the result the application is allowed and we direct the petitioner to be released forth with from the custody. Application allowed.