JUDGMENT : J.K. Mohanty, J. - The detenu Gouranga @ Goura Jena has filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that a writ of habeas corpus be issued against the State of Orissa inasmuch as his detention in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') was not in accordance with law. 2. The District Magistrate, Puri, being satisfied that it was necessary to detain the detenu with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, passed the order of detention against the detenu on 25-3-1985. Accordingly, the detenu was detained in the Bhubaneswar jail from 25-3-1985. According to the petitioner, the grounds of detention were communicated to him on 28-3-1985 vide Annexure-2. The detenu submitted his representation to the Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Home Department, Bhubaneswar, vide Annexure-3 dated 9-4-1985. On 30-4-1985 the decision of the Government rejecting his representation was communicated to the detenu as per Annexure-4. Now, the detenu has challenged his detention on the following grounds :- (a) That the representation against his detention submitted to the State Government was not disposed of within a reasonable time. (b) That inordinate unexplained delay would vitiate the order of detention. (c) That even if the allegations made against the petitioner were true, those did not make out a case of disruption of public order. 3. Opposite party No. 2, the District Magistrate, Puri, in his counter has stated that on the basis of materials which have already been supplied to the petitioner as per Annexure-2 series, he was satisfied that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was necessary to detain him under the provision of Section 3 of the Act. On being so satisfied, he passed orders directing detention of the petitioner (as per Annexure-2). The order of detention was passed bona fide. On perusal of the relevant materials (Annexure-2 series) he was satisfied that the activities of the petitioner affected the even tempo of the community life in the locality and that disturbed the public order. With a view to preventing the petitioner from indulging in the activities to disturb the public order in future, his detention was necessary. On perusal of the relevant materials (Annexure-2 series) he was satisfied that the activities of the petitioner affected the even tempo of the community life in the locality and that disturbed the public order. With a view to preventing the petitioner from indulging in the activities to disturb the public order in future, his detention was necessary. O.P. No. 2 has refuted the allegations made in the writ petition and has stated that the representation was processed with all promptitude and there was no delay in forwarding the same to the Government. On behalf of the State of Orissa (P.W. No. 1), the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Home Department (Special Section) has filed an affidavit. It is stated that on receipt of the representation, it was examined in the department with due care and thereafter it was submitted to the Chief Minister on 22-4-1985 for his orders. The Chief Minister, after careful consideration, passed orders rejecting the representation on 27-4-1985 which was communicated to the petitioner on 30-4-1985. Thus, the representation was dealt with by the State Government with all reasonable promptness and diligence and as such there was no violation of any provision of the Constitution. 4. The grounds of detention of the petitioner, as evident from Annexure-2, are as follows :- (1) On 22-3-1985 he along with his associates, namely, Ashoka Tripathy and Suka @ Subash Tripathy, came in a trekker to Suburban Industries (Kalinga) Private Limited, entered into the office and demanded subscription from the Assistant working in the office. On his refusal, by show of dagger they snatched away Rs. 50/-. When others came there, the petitioner and his associates chased them with knives in hand. So, all ran away and for sometime the traffic and the life in the locality were disrupted. (2) At about 5.00 p.m. in the afternoon of 24-3-1985 the petitioner and his associates asked the Manager, Suburban Industries, Srikant Sen, to withdraw the reports submitted to the police regarding the previous day's incident. On his refusal, the petitioner threatened him by show of knife and snatched away Rs. 20/- from his pocket, when the public who had gathered there protested, the petitioner and his associates chased them with knives in hand. The people in the locality ran for safety and kept their doors closed. For sometime the traffic and the life in the locality were disrupted. 5. 20/- from his pocket, when the public who had gathered there protested, the petitioner and his associates chased them with knives in hand. The people in the locality ran for safety and kept their doors closed. For sometime the traffic and the life in the locality were disrupted. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even taking all the above allegations to be true, they have no nexus with the 'public order' situation and they are relatable only to the 'law and order' situation. Therefore, the order of detention which has been passed after taking into consideration the petitioner's involvement in the aforesaid incidents is ultra vires. It also suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. In support of his contention that the allegations made against the petitioner will amount to mere disturbance of 'law and order' and will not constitute a disturbance which will affect the 'public order', learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions reported in Sushanta Goswami and others v. The State of West Bengal AIR 1969 S.C. 1004 , Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal AIR 1970 S.C. 1228 , Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another AIR 1981 S.C. 870 , Ajay Dixit v. State of U.P. and others AIR 1985 S.C. 18 and Jyoti Ranjan Samantray v. State of Orissa and another (1983) 56 C.L.T. 88 . 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the grounds of detention clearly relate to the 'public order' situation because they are calculated to disturb public peace and tranquillity. He relied on the decisions reported in Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration and others AIR 1982 S.C. 1143 and Ram Ranjan Chatterjee v. The State of West Bengal AIR 1975 S.C. 509. 7. Now, it is well settled by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court and also this Court that the true distinction between the areas of 'public order' and law and order' lies not in the nature of quality of act, but in the degree and extent of its reach upon society. The act by itself 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. The act by itself 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. On a careful consideration of the documents in Annexure-2 series, we are of the view that the above test is clearly fulfilled in the present case. So the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no merit. 8. The next question for consideration is whether there has been unreasonable delay in disposing of the representation submitted by the petitioner. On this point, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on decisions reported in Harish Pahwa v. State of U.P. and others AIR 1981 S.C. 1126 , Devi Lal Mahto v. State of Bihar and another AIR 1982 S.C. 1548 and Pradipta Kumar Mishra v. District Magistrate, Puri and another (1985) 59 C.L.T. 259 . According to the opposite parties, the representation of the petitioner was made on 9-4-1985 which reached the Collector on 10-4-1985. The District Magistrate was out of headquarters from 11-4-1985 to 14-4-1985. On 14-4-1985 para-wise comment was called for from the Superintendent of Police, Bhubaneswar, which reached the Collector on 16-4-1985. On 17-4-1985 the the representation along with the para-wise comment of the District Magistrate was received in the Home Department. The matter was processed by the Section Officer, Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary and finally it was placed before the Additional Secretary on 22-4-1985. On 23-4-1985 the file was sent to the Chief Minister who passed the rejection order on 27-4-1985. In this view of the matter, it is contended that there is no delay. Learned counsel for the opposite parties relied on the decision reported in State of Orissa and another v. Shri Manilal Singhania and another AIR 1976 S.C. 456 . 9. On a consideration of the above decisions, the position that emerges is that the representation made by the detenu against the order of detention should be considered by the State Government as soon as possible, that is, with reasonable dispatch and if that is not done, it would have the effect of vitiating the order of detention. But, it is neither possible nor advisable to lay down any rigid period of time uniformly applicable to all cases within which the representation of a detenu must be considered by the State Government. But, it is neither possible nor advisable to lay down any rigid period of time uniformly applicable to all cases within which the representation of a detenu must be considered by the State Government. The Court would have to consider judicially in each case on the available material whether the gap between the receipt of the representation and its consideration by the State Government is so unreasonably long and the explanation for the delay offered by the State Government so unsatisfactory as to render the detention order thereafter illegal. 10. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the explanation offered by the opposite parties as to how the representation was dealt with from the time of its receipt till the disposal, we are of the view that there was no unreasonable delay or lack of diligence. This writ application, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed as such. There would be no order as to costs. K.P. Mohapatra, J. - I agree. Final Result : Dismissed