JUDGMENT 1. - This is a writ petition seeking to quash the detention order of the petitioner under the National Security Act, 1980, (hereinafter referred to as the NSA). 2. District Magistrate, Kota vide his order dated 27-5-1986 (Anaexure-1) in exercise of powers under section 3 (2) of the NSA made an order directing that the petitioner be detained and placed in District Jail, Kota, with a view to prevent him from acting, in any manner, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Grounds of detention were communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 4-2-1986 (Annexure-2). The State Government approved the detention order vide their order dated 6-6-1986 (Annx. 3). The petitioner submitted a representation on which comments of the District Magistrate were sought by the state Government and the said representation was rejected by the state Government vide letter dated 1st July, 1986 (Annexure-R-5). The matter was placed before the Advisory Board which found that there were sufficient grounds for passing the detention order thereafter, a final order was issued by the State Government on 22-7-1986 (Annexure-6) by which it confirmed the order of detention passed under section 13 of the Act and ordered that the petitioner be detained for one year till 2-6-1987. Under these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Notices were issued to the State Government and a reply of the writ petition has been filed, so also an additional affidavit on 3rd March, 1987. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently argued that all the incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention order are not proximate rather too remote and therefore, the detention order is vitiated. He has further submitted that there is no question of any public order but at the most, the incidents may cause problem of law & order and that there is a big difference between law and order and public order and in this connection has placed reliance on Kamlakar Prasad v. State of M.P., AIR 1984 SC 211 . Anant Sakh Ram v. State, AIR 1987 SC 137 , a division bench judgment of this court in D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1782/86 Kesari Singh v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 10-2-1987 . Anant Sakh Ram v. State, AIR 1987 SC 137 , a division bench judgment of this court in D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1782/86 Kesari Singh v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 10-2-1987 . D.B. Hateas Corpus Petition No. 2154/86 decided on 18-2-87 by this court, a very recent decision of tie Supreme Court in State of UP v. Hari Shanker Tiwari, 1986 (1) S.V.L.R.(Cr.) 166 decided on 25-2-1987. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are sufficient grounds for passing order of detention, and has submitted that number of cases are pending against the petitioner for various offences and it is necessary in the interest of public order to detain the petitioner. He has placed reliance on Shivratan Makim v. Union of India, 1986 SC 610 and Surajpal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1986 SC 2177 . 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the whole matter and have also gone through the various submissions made at the bar and the authorities cited before us. 8. The petitioner in the past, had also been detained vide order dated 26-12-1980 and he was released after one year on 26-12-1981. There are 22 incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention out of which, in many cases, either the petitioner was released or there was a compromise between the parties & nearly seven cases are still pending trial in various courts. During earlier detention, he was released on parole on 9-12-1981 and on that date, the case was registered under section 341 IPC, 352 IPC which is still pending in the court Another case was registered on 28-5-1982 under section 332, 353 and 356 which is also pending in the court. Yet another case under section 8/18 Dangerous Drugs Act registered on 1-11-1982 is also pending trial. On 28-9-1982 also, a case was registered under section 341/327 IPC which is also pending in the court. On 14-1-1983, yet another case was registered under section 307 etc. IPC which is also pending trial in the court. Again, a case was registered under section 307 IPC and 341 IPC etc. on 30th March, 1983 in which the petitioner is still facing trial. Another case was registered under section 335/34 IPC on 18-9-1983 which is also pending in the court. Final report has been given in a case under section 392 IPC registered on 5-10-1983. Again, a case was registered under section 307 IPC and 341 IPC etc. on 30th March, 1983 in which the petitioner is still facing trial. Another case was registered under section 335/34 IPC on 18-9-1983 which is also pending in the court. Final report has been given in a case under section 392 IPC registered on 5-10-1983. Case Under section 4/25 Arms Act registered on 17th November, 1983 is still pending. Yet another case was registered under section 452/324 IPC and 341 IPC on 12-11-1983 which is still pending. A report against the petitioner was registered in the Rojnamcha on 25-4-84 that he harasses the general public near the liquor shop. A report was also registered in the Rojnamcha on 26-4-84 that the petitioner did not pay a sum of Rs. 2 to the Rickshaw puller and abused him. In the year 1985, a case under section 34, Excise Act was registered on 7th March, 1985 which is pending in the court. Another case was registered on 24th July, 1985 under section 365, 342, 323/341 IPC which is also pending in the court. In the year 1986 a case was registered under section 341, 323 IPC on 30-3-1986 which is also pending. There is an entry in the Rojnamcha on 27th April, 1986 in which the petitioner is alleged to have threatened and abused Arjun Singh. 9. Thus, having considered all the incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention, we find that it cannot be said to be a case of breach of public order. All these incidents are relating to breach of law and order. Moreover, the serious incidents are too remote and not proximate. There is no serious offence registered against the petitioner in the year 1985 and 1986 and therefore, we are of the opinion that there were no sufficient grounds for detaining the petitioner with a view of preventing him from acting, in any manner, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Moreover, the serious incidents are too remote and not proximate. There is no serious offence registered against the petitioner in the year 1985 and 1986 and therefore, we are of the opinion that there were no sufficient grounds for detaining the petitioner with a view of preventing him from acting, in any manner, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The petitioner could be dealt with in the ordinary procedure for particular offence that he has committed and all these matters can be taken up if and when he makes an application for bail in such offences and if the petitioner has been released on bail in all these offences it will be upon for the State Government to apply for cancellation of bail on these grounds and the concerned court will examine the matter in accordance with law. 10. In the result this writ petition is allowed, the detention order dated 27-5-1986 is hereby quashed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Writ allowed. *******