JUDGMENT R. K. Shukla, J. - By this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Ballabh Chaturvedi, resident of Mohalla Mata Gali Mathura through his mother Smt. Godawari has challenged his detention order dated 12- 8-86 passed by the District Magistrate, Mathura in the exercise of powers under S. 3 (2) of the National Security Act hereinafter called the Act. 2. The aforesaid detention order along with grounds therefore given in Annexure 2 to this petition was served on the petitioner in jail on the same day i.e. 12-8-86. 2. The aforesaid detention order along with grounds therefore given in Annexure 2 to this petition was served on the petitioner in jail on the same day i.e. 12-8-86. The grounds on the basis of which the District Magistrate passed the aforesaid order of detention of the petitioner are in Hindi as under : " 1- fnukad 7&4&84 dks yxHkx 5&30 cts lk;adky ek:xyh 'kgj eFkwjk esa vki cYyHk pkScs us vius ,d lkFkh lfgr Jh yky fd'ku i= vkse izdk'k fuoklh ekSgYyk ek:xyh Fkkuk dksrkoyh eFkqjk ds ?kj ij x;s vkSj mlls :i;s ekxsa euk djus ij vius mDr ykyfd'ku o mlds HkkbZ dks tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls mu ij reaps ls Qk;j fd;k ijUrq ;g nksuksa cky cky cp x;s Hkkxrs le; vkius fQj ekjus dh /kedh nh bl ?kVuk dk Fkkuk dksrokyh ij va0la0 261 /kkjk 307 Hkk0na0la0 iathd'r gqvk tks U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gSA 2- fnukad 30&6&83 dks yxHkx 10&30 cts izkIr% vki cYyHk pkScs us vius ,d lkFkh lfgr Jh eFkqj iq= ca'kh yky fuoklh Lokeh?kkV Fkkuk dksrokyh eFkqjk dks ekjk o tku dh /kedh nh bl ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ Jh eFkqjk ds }kjk Fkkuk dksrokyh ds vUrxZr /kkjk 323] 504 Hkk0n0la0 iathd'r djkbZ tks U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gSA 3- fnukad 8&7&84 dks yxHkx 9&45 cts jkr vki cYyHk pkScs Hkjriqj xsV Fkkuk dksrokyh eFkqjk fLFkr vaxzsth 'kjkc dh nqdku ij x;s vkSj fodzsrk Jh ds'ko izlkn frokjh ls eqQr 'kjkc ekaxh mlds euk djus ij vkius xkyh xykSt dh vkSj vki ds'ko izlkn ls ;g dg dj pys x;s fd esjk uke cYyHk pkScs gS fdlh fnu tku ls ekj nwaxk vkSj Jh ds'ko izlkn frokjh dh lwpuk ij Fkkus dksrokyh ij /kkjk 504] 506 Hkk0na0la0 ds vUrxZr ,u0lh0vkj0 la0 359 fy[kh xbZ gSA 4- fnukad 9&8&84 dks yxHkx 10 cts fnu Jh d'".kk xksiky vxzoky ls vki oYyHk pkScs us iSls ekaxs vkSj vius fjokYoj ls mij dks Qk;j djrs gq;s gh dgk fd bl rjg mM+k nwaxkA vki oYyHk pkScs ds dk;Z ls cktkj esa HkxnM+ ep xbZ vkSj yksd O;oLFkk fNUu fHkUu gks xbZ bl ?kVuk ds igys fnu vki oYyHk pkScs us Jh fd'ku xksiky ls iSls ekxsa Fks] fd eqgYys esa jgrk gS rks iSls nsus gksxsA bl ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ Fkkuk dksrokyh eFkqjk esa /kkjk 352] 506 Hkk0na0la0 ds vUrxZr iathd'r gSA 5- fnukad 1&11&84 dks yxHkx 10 cts fnu dUgS;k DykFk ekdsZV 'kgj eFkqjk Fkkuk dksrokyh esa vki cYyHk pkScs us vU; lkFkh jes'k tks'kh] ijes'ojh n;ky vkfn o vU; 400&500 O;fDr;ksa ds lkFk feydj mDr ekdsZV dh nqdkuksa dks vkx yxkbZ vkSj lkeku o diM+k vkfn Hkh pksjh fd;k bl ?kVuk esa 8&9 nqdkus iw.kZr% ty xbZ vkSj dkQh ewY; dk lkeku pksjh pyk x;kA bl ?kVuk dh Fkkuk dksrokyh ij vfHk;ksx va0la0 938 /kkjk 147] 148] 149] 436] 380 Hkk0na0la0 iathd'r gqvkA tks U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gS vki bl vfHk;ksx esa tekur ij gSA 6- fnukad 17&3&85 dks Jh ds0ds0 'kekZ izHkkjh fujh{kd Fkkuk dksrokyh ls feyh lwpuk ij e; deZpkjh;ksa ds NRrk cktkj igaqps rks NRrk cktkj esa dUgS;k DykFk ekdsZV ds ikl ;equk iznw"k.k dks ysdj prqosZnh lekt o vYi yksxksa esa feydj ;equk ls fudyh dkbZ o ?kkl vkfn dks lM+d ij Mkydj vke turk ds fudyus dk jkLrk o VS~fQd tke dj fn;k Fkk ftlls vke turk dk jkLrk tke gks x;k vkSj yksd O;oLFkk fNUu fHkUu gks x;h cktkjksa esa vkard dk okrkoj.k Nk x;k nqdkunkj viuh nqdkusa cUn dj Hkkx x;s bl ?kVuk dk Fkkuk dksrokyh ij la0 176 /kkjk 7 fdzfeuy yk ,esUMesUV iathd'r gqvk tks U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gSA 6A- fnukad 28-4-85 dks izHkkjh fujh{kd dksrokyh Jh ds0ds0 'kekZ }kjk vfHk;qDr cYyHk pkScs iq= enu pkScs dks jk"V~h; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr fojks/kh xfrfof/k;ksa ds dkj.k fxjQrkj fd;k x;k ftldk eqdnek vijk/k la0 313@85 /kkjk 3( 2) jk"V~h; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e iathd'r gqvk vkSj vfHk;qDr tsy esa Hkstk x;k rFkk muds vusd dk;Z dykiksa ds lEcU/k esa fu:) djk;k x;kA 7- fnukad 2&2&86 dks Jh ,0ih0 xqBkj izHkkjh fujh{kd Fkkuk dksrokyh dks lwpuk feyh fd vfHk0 cYyHk pkScs vius lkFkh;ksa lfgr vk;Z lekt jksM ij nqdkunkj ls pkSFk :i;k olwy dj jgk gS rFkk yksxkas ls vuqfpr dk;Z ls Mjk /kedk dj yksxksa dks vkrafdr dj jgk gS vkSj dg jgk gS fd nqdkunkjksa vxj eFkqjk 'kgj esa nqdku djuh gS rks iSlk nsuk iMsxk vU;Fkk tku ls ekj fnls tkvksxsa iqfyl ikVhZ dks vkrs ns[kdj tku ls ejus dh fu;r ls vfHk0 cYyHk pkScs us o vU; lkfFk;ksa u vius vius raeps ls Qk;j djrs gq;s Hkkx x;s bl ?kVuk dk Fkkuk dksrokyh ij va0la0 112 /kkjk 307 Hkk0na0la0 o 120 ch0v0la0 113 /kkjk 2l(1)(2) /kkjk 3 m0iz0 fxjksg can ,oa lekt fojks/k fdz;kDyki fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1986 iathd'r gqvk tks foospukf/ku gS bl ?kVuk ls turk cgqr vkrafde gks x;h nqdkunkj tc ls Hk;Hkhr gks x;sA vfHk;qDr fnukad 25-5-86 dks tekur ij NwV x;kA 8- fnukad 8&7&86 vfHk0 cYyHk pkScs us vius nks rhu vU; lkFkh;ksa lfgr vuqfpr vkfFkZd ykHk mBkus ds mn~ns'; ls pkSd cktkj esa voS/k 'kL=ksa dks ysdj nqdkunkjksa o O;kikfj;ksa ls pkSFk olwy djus dk iz;kl djrk Fkk pkScs mUgsa tku ls ekjus dh /kedh ns jgk Fkk blls pkSd cktkj esa Hk;adj vkrad Nk x;k gS vkSj cktkj esa HkxnM+ ep xbZ nqdkunkj nqdku can djds Hkkx jgs Fks fd nqdkunkj ml fujh{kd nqdku can djds Hkkx jgs Fks fd nqdkunkj ml fujh{kd Jh f'ko';ke 'kekZ igaqps rks vki cYyHk pkScs o vkids lkFkh Hkkx x;s nqdkunkjksa us crk;k fd vki cYyHk pkScs pkSFk idMus ds fy;s x;k Fkk vkSj 'kL=ksa ds tku ls ekjus dh /kedh ns jgk gS rks fd ge nqdkunkj pkSFk nsuk 'kq: dj nsa bl ?kVuk o jtojk Fkkus dksrokyh dh t0izh0 48 fnukad 8&7&86 ij ntZ fd;k x;k gSA 9- fnukad 13-7-86 dks vki cYyHk pkScs vius lkfFk;ksa lfgr tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls ;ksxsUnz o mlds HkkbZ ij Qk;j fd;k ftldk Fkkuk dksrokyh ij va0la0 616 /kkjk 307 Hkk0na0la0 dk vfHk;ksx iathd'r gqvk bl ?kVuk ls cktkj esa HkxnM+ ep xbZ vkSj yksx Hk;Hkhr gks x;sA 10- fnukad 8-8-86 dks cYyHk pkScs Jh ;ksxsUnz dks vnkyr lh0ts0,e0 eFkqjk ds lkeus xkyh xykst dh o tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nh ftldh lwpuk Fkkuk lnj cktkj eFkqjk esa ua0 56 ij /kkjk 504@506 vkbZ0ih0lh0 dh fjiksVZ iathd'r gqbZA 11- fnukad 8-8-86 dks cYyHk pkScs ds }kjk cgksjh uke dk drgjh vnkyr esa le; gh dgk fd vxj rwus esjs f[kykQ xokgh nh rks tsy ls NwVus ds ckn tku ls ekj nwaxk dks fo0la0 587 ij /kkjk 540@866 vkbZ0ih0lh0 dh iathd'r gqbZA " 3. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that he was previously detained in pursuance of an order under S. 3 (2) of the Act on 28th April, 1985. Against that order the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 11474 of 1985 which was allowed by this Court on 8th Jan. 1986. It is also urged that the aforesaid grounds Nos. I to 5 of this detention order are the same which were in the previous detention order and ground No. 6 of this detention order was ground No. 7 in the previous detention order. Ground No 6A of the present detention order recites only petitioner's previous detention order. 4. Referring the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Ibrahim Buchu Bafan v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1985 SC 697 Sri Prem Prakash, learned Deputy Government Advocate has at the outset conceded that the aforesaid ground Nos. I to 6 should be excluded from the consideration in this writ petition as they were subject matter of the aforesaid previous writ petition. It appears from the judgment dated 8-1-86 of this Court in the previous writ petition that it was allowed only on the ground that second representation given by the petitioner in that case to the District Magistrate was not forwarded to the State Government fore consideration. No finding was given on merits of the grounds of that detention order. Since the learned Government Advocate has conceded to exclude the aforesaid ground) Nos. 1 to 6 from the consideration in this case, therefore we exclude that on the basis of the observation of the Supreme Court in I. B. Bafan's (supra) which reads as under : "It is therefore our clear opinion that in a situation where the order of detention has been quashed by the High Court. sub-s. (2) of section 11 is not applicable and the detaining authority is not entitled to make another order under S. 3 of the Act on the same grounds." Although the aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court was made in a case arising under Conservation Of Foreign Exhange And Prevention Of Smuggling Activities Act but the same principle is applicable in this case also because the language of S. 11 of that Act is the same as the language of S. 14 of the National Security Act. 5. 5. Sri Ravi Kant, learned counsel, for the petitioner has vehemently challenged the present detention order dated 12-8-86, mainly on the ground that none of the aforesaid remaining grounds Nos. 7 to 1 l pertains to public order. In support of his contentions he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Dixit v. State of U.P., AIR 1985 SC 18 and on a decision of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar v. State of U.P. in H.C.W.P. No. 6585 of 1985 decided on 24th Sept., 1985. 6. On the other hand Sri Prem Prakash, learned Deputy Government Advocate. relying on three decisions of the Supreme Court, namely Gur Charandra Dey v. State of West Bengal, (1976) 1 SCC 192 , Ram Bali Rajbhar v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 623 , Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1982 SC 1143 and one decision of this court in the case of Rasheed v. State in H.C.W.P. No. 11633 of 1984 decided on 22-11-1984, has vehemently urged that the aforesaid grounds Nos. 7 to 11 relate to the maintenance of public order, therefore the present detention of the petitioner is fully justified. 7. The main point for our consideration in this case is whether any of the remaining aforesaid grounds Nos. 7 to 11 disturbed the public order or merely affected law and order. The distinction between the concepts of "public order" and "law order" has been clearly drawn by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court. The true distinction between the areas of "Public Order" and "law and order" lies not in the nature or quality of the fact, but in the degree and extent of its reach .upon society. The distinction between the (aforesaid concepts is a fine one but this does not mean that there can be no over-lapping acts similar in nature but committing in different contexts and circumstances might cause different reactions. In one case it might affect specific individuals only 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". The test to determine whether an act affects law. 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". The test to determine whether an act affects law. and order or public order as laid down by the Supreme Court in Kanu Biswas v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC 1656 case is : does it lead to disturbance of the current of life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquillity of the Society undisturbed. 8. In the light of what has been observed above there is no doubt that each one of the incidents mentioned under the aforesaid grounds Nos. 7 and 8 was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Rest of the grounds Nos. 9, 10 and 11 affected only law and order. The incident relating to ground No. 7 occurred on 2-2-86 on Arya Samaj Road in Mathura city where the petitioner Ballabh Chaturvedi was collecting Chauth illegally by using force from the shop-keepers and was frightening the people of the locality for his illegal economic gain saying that if they wanted to do their business (Dukandari) in Mathura city then they have to pay money otherwise they would be killed. On receiving this information when Sri S. P. Bahuguna, In charge PS Kotwali Mathura reached there along with other police men, then petitioner and his colleagues ran away firing shots at the police party. Bharat one of the co associates of the petitioner was arrested on the spot but the petitioner ran away firing pistol. A case was registered at PS Kotwali as case crime No. 112 under S. 307 IPC and a case crime No. 113 under the provisions of the Gangesters Act too was registered which are under investigation. From this incident a grave fear has spread amongst the people and they felt insecured as after being bailed out on 25-5-85 the petitioner became fearless. The incident dated 8-7-86 of the aforesaid ground No. 8 is that the petitioner along with his 2-3 associates armed with lethal weapons was collecting Chauth from the shopkeepers and traders. He was threatening to kill people if Chauth was not given to him. The incident dated 8-7-86 of the aforesaid ground No. 8 is that the petitioner along with his 2-3 associates armed with lethal weapons was collecting Chauth from the shopkeepers and traders. He was threatening to kill people if Chauth was not given to him. Due to that, terror spread in the market and people started running away after closing their shops. When Sri Sheonath Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police reached there, then the petitioner and his associates ran away. The shopkeeper told him that the petitioner Ballabh Chaturvedi had come there to collect Chauth and was threatenig to kill them so that shopkeepers may start giving Chauth. This incident was registered in G.D. on 8-7-86 at serial No. 48. 9. Similarly the incident dated 23-7-86 of ground No. 9 is about firing shot by Ballabh Chaturvedi and his co-associates with intention to kill the complainant Yogendra and his brother which is registered as case crime No. 616 under S. 307 IPC. Thereafter an incident dated 8-8-86 of ground No. 10 is about hurling abuses and threat to kill Yogendra Nath, complainant in front of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura which was registered as PS Sadar Mathura Bazar at Serial No. 56 under S. 504/506 IPC. The last incident dated 8-8-86 of ground No. 11 is that the petitioner abused and threatened Bahori Lal saying that if he gave evidence against him, he would be killed by the petitioner after being released from jail. A first information report of which was lodged on 9-8-86 under S. 504/506 IPC. 10. After careful scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of each of the grounds Nos. 7 to 11 we are fully satisfied that even if we ignore the aforesaid grounds Nos. 9, 10 and 11 view of a Full Bench decision of this court in the case of Ashok Dixit v. Union of India, HCWP No. 11151 of 1984 decided on 1-8-1985, even then the aforesaid grounds Nos. 7 and 8 certainly make out a case of disturbance of public order. The potentiality of the aforesaid acts mentioned in grounds Nos. 7 and 8 is such that the impact will not remain confined to the individuals but would affect the smooth life of the community itself. We have no doubt in our mind that the two activities attributed to the petitioner under grounds Nos. The potentiality of the aforesaid acts mentioned in grounds Nos. 7 and 8 is such that the impact will not remain confined to the individuals but would affect the smooth life of the community itself. We have no doubt in our mind that the two activities attributed to the petitioner under grounds Nos. 7 and 8 fall within the realm of public order and the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate cannot be said to be mala fide. The District Magistrate would be well justified in believing that the petitioner is likely to indulge in such activities in future also as to disturb the even tempo of the life of the community of that area. The act of collecting any dues or any tax from the people is entirely the right of the Government or local bodies in accordance with law. People have their fundamental rights to do their business without such fear and threat for their lives from undesirable and otherwise uncontrollable elements of the society. Thus we have no doubt that each of the above two incidents mentioned in grounds Nos. 7 and 8 disturbed the public order. The cases of Ajay Dixit (supra) and Rajendra Kumar (HCWP No. 6585 of 1985, D/-24-9-1985) (All) (supra) cited on behalf of the petitioner are distinguishable on facts from this case. It has been clearly held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Dixit (supra) in para 15 of the report that question of the disturbance of tranquillity of the society has to be determined in every case on facts. There is no formula by which one case can be distinguished from another. So far case of Rajendra (supra) is concerned, on the facts and circumstances of that case their Lordships were satisfied that there was no disturbance of public order but in view of the above discussion we are fully satisfied on this point that the acts of the petitioner mentioned in the aforesaid grounds Nos. 7 and 8 clearly disturbed the public order and having S. 5A of the Act in mind the present detention order dated 12-8-86 cannot be declared illegal if it can be sustained even on one of the grounds. 11. It was also urged on behalf of the petitioner that the District Magistrate has not applied his mind and passed the detention 'order in question mechanically due to some outside influence. 11. It was also urged on behalf of the petitioner that the District Magistrate has not applied his mind and passed the detention 'order in question mechanically due to some outside influence. We find no force in this argument also. The District Magistrate has clearly stated in his affidavit that he having fully satisfied himself about the truthfulness of the incidents which are mentioned in the grounds of detention, passed the detention order in question against the petitioner. He has further deposed in paragraph 14 of the affidavit that he was not pressurised or coerced by any one in taking decision under the Act against the petitioner. After going through the materials on the record, we are fully satisfied that it is not correct to say that the District Magistrate has not applied his mind in passing the detention order in question. 12. Next it was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment of the High Court in the previous Writ Petition, grounds of the aforesaid previous order as well as copies of the affidavits annexures 4 and 5 and copy of News Item, annexure 6 published in "Amar Ujala" dated 18-10-85 were not put before the District Magistrate, State Government and Central Government for consideration which contravene sub-cls. (2), (3), (4), (5) of S. 3 of the Act. After careful scrutiny of the materials on the record we find no merit in this argument also. The District Magistrate has clearly stated in his affidavit in para 15 that he has not received any representation made by any shopkeeper of Chowk Bazar denying the prosecution version. The question of vagueness has also been denied by him in para 15. The dates, time and place of the incident relating to grounds Nos. 7 and 8 had been clearly mentioned and the documents and materials with regard to the aforesaid grounds were furnished to the petitioner and he made his submissions in his representation dated 31st August 1986, therefore, it is erroneous to say that grounds Nos. 7 and 8 are in any manner vague and caused any prejudice to the petitioner. Moreover when the facts are neither in the knowledge of the reporting authority nor in knowledge of detaining authority then those facts are not required to be considered. 7 and 8 are in any manner vague and caused any prejudice to the petitioner. Moreover when the facts are neither in the knowledge of the reporting authority nor in knowledge of detaining authority then those facts are not required to be considered. So far the aforesaid judgment of the High Court in the previous writ petition is concerned it was not relevant for passing the present detention order. That writ petition was allowed on only one ground for not sending the representation of the petitioner by the District Magistrate to the State Government. Therefore it was not relevant for passing the present detention order. Thus this argument has also no force, consequently rejected. 13. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is an inordinate delay in disposal of the representation of the petitioner which vitiated the detention order. We find no force in this argument also. It is clearly stated by the District Magistrate in para 8 of his affidavit in reply to pars 11 of the petition that the representation dated 30th August 1986 was made available to the office of the deponent on the same day. On 31st August 1986 it was holiday on account of Sunday. Therefore District Magistrate elicited the comments from police officers of Mathura on 1-9-86 as a few facts mentioned in the representation .required to be suitably replied by the police administration. On receipt of the comments from the police the District Magistrate sent his comments to the State Government on 5- 9-86. From the affidavit of Sri Pratap Narain Tiwari, it appears that the comments of the District Magistrate were received along with the representation of the petitioner by the State Government on 6-9-86. The State Government placed the representation along with comments of the District Magistrate before the Advisory Board on 9-6-86. A copy of the representation of the petitioner was retained by the Government and a detailed note was put up by Sri Tiwari who was dealing with petitioner's matter on 8-9-86. The Joint Secretary examined the above representation on 9-9-86. Thereafter it was placed before the Home Secretary but 13th and 14th Sept. 1986 were public Holidays being second Saturday and Sunday. Meanwhile the Advisory Board had fixed hearing for 15th Sept. 1986, therefore, the entire record was requisitioned by the Board. The Joint Secretary examined the above representation on 9-9-86. Thereafter it was placed before the Home Secretary but 13th and 14th Sept. 1986 were public Holidays being second Saturday and Sunday. Meanwhile the Advisory Board had fixed hearing for 15th Sept. 1986, therefore, the entire record was requisitioned by the Board. Consequently the Home Secretary could examine the representation on 17-9-86 after receipt of the record. After the examination by the Home Secretary the matter was forwarded to higher authorities. It was finally rejected by the State Government on the day itself. The facts about the rejection of the representation was communicated to the petitioner through the District Magistrate on 19-9-86. The said rejection order was received by the petitioner on 25-9-86. In such a situation it can hardly be said that there is any un-explained delay. Thus we are of the view that there has not been any unaccountable or unreasonable delay in the disposal of the representation made by the petitioner. No other point urged. 14. In view of the above discussions the present detention order dated 12-8-86 passed against the petitioner is perfectly justified and needs no interference by this Court. 15. In the result this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.