JUDGMENT I.P. Singh, J. - Arvind Kumar Shukla petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the validity of detention order dated 5.9. 1984 passed by ti,a District Magistrate, Etawah (hereinafter referred to as the detaining authority) under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (No. 65 of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 2. The detention order dated 5.9.1984 was served upon the detenu in District Jail, Etawah on the same date. The grounds of detention were also served on him simultaneously. The said grounds are six in number. The first ground relates to an incident of 2i.10.1979 at 6.30 p.m. in which it is alleged that on account of old enmity the detenu and his companions Birendra Dubey and Anit Kumar alias Pappu murdered Atul Prakash by assaulting him with knives. It is said that the murder was committed on the open road and had caused terror in the community. Even if it be so the said ground is apparently stale. 3. In the second ground, the detenu is said to be involved in a murder case of 15.1.1984. The detenu has filed Annexure 3' to the writ petition which is a report of the Jailer, District Jail, Etawah, dated 28.8.1984 and it certifies that the detenu was confined inside the jail from 11.1.1984 to 25.1.1984. Obviously, the detenu could not have taken part in the said incident of 15.1.1984. The said ground becomes non-existent. 4. In the grounds of detention, which was served on the detenu, it is mentioned that the detenu was in jail since 25.1.1985. The next four incidents, which are the subject matter of the next four grounds of detention, relate to 11.7.1984, 14.7.1984, 24.8.1984 and 29.8.1984. Obviously, when the detenu was inside the jail on these dates, there could not be any direct connection of the detenu with those incidents. For the purposes of his detention, the said grounds become non-existent and irrelevant. 5. Obviously, when the detenu was inside the jail on these dates, there could not be any direct connection of the detenu with those incidents. For the purposes of his detention, the said grounds become non-existent and irrelevant. 5. Besides none of those grounds can be said to relate to public order, they were activities directed against individuals and, in our opinion, the said activities could not have any reach on the society and were incapable of disturbing the even tempo of life of the community or normal flow of life of the community in the locality. 6. Thus the very basis to authorise the detaining authority to detain the detenu under Section 3(2) of the Act i.e. disturbance of the public order is missing. The detention order in question is invalid and illegal. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. We direct the respondents not to detain Arvind Kumar Shukla the petitioner (detenu) any more in pursuance of the said order of detention dated 5.8.1984 passed by the District Magistrate, Etawah. 8. It is made clear that the order, which is passed by us today, will not entitle the detenu to be released physically if he could be detained in pursuance of any other lawful order or is wanted otherwise in any other matter.