JUDGMENT R.K. Shukla, J. - This Habeas Corpus Writ Petition filed by Ali Ahmad under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Ls directed against the detention order dated 23-10-1986, passed under S. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter called the Act) by the detaining authority District Magistrate, Aligarh in the exercise of powers entrusted to him under S. 3(3) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid detention order, ground of detention and all other relevant materials in connection therewith were served on the petitioner on the same day, i.e., 23-10-1986 in District Jail, Aligarh, where he was confined in connection with a case crime No. 483 of 1986 under Sections 124-A, 153-A, 295-A and 505, I.P.C. from 13-10-1986. 2. The aforesaid detention order, ground of detention and all other relevant materials in connection therewith were served on the petitioner on the same day, i.e., 23-10-1986 in District Jail, Aligarh, where he was confined in connection with a case crime No. 483 of 1986 under Sections 124-A, 153-A, 295-A and 505, I.P.C. from 13-10-1986. The ground of the detention order in question reads as under : - " D;ksafd fnukad 17&9&86 dks tcfd izHkkjh fujh{kd Fkkuk flfoy ykbZUl iqfyl ny ds lkFk 'kkfUr O;oLFkk o psfdax M~;wVh esa vyhx<+ eqfLye fo'o fon~;ky; ds ifjlj esa Fks vkSj mUgksaus ,d iEiysV mnwZ dk ;wfuoflZVh ifjlj esa nhoky ij fpidk gqvk cjken fd;k] tks jktnzksg ,oa oxZ fo'ks"k ds izfr 'k=qrk iw.kZ dk;Z ds fy, mRizsfjr djrk FkkA bl rjg ds izpkj ds dkj.k fo'ofon~;ky; o uxj esa yksd O;oLFkk Hkax gks jgh Fkh D;ksafd bl ipsZ esa Nik Fkk fd eqfLye cqyokvks] D;k rqEgkjs [kwu vc xnZ iM x;s gS] vkSj D;k rqeus eka th ds vkSjkd Hkqyk fn;s gSA rqEgkjk otwn D;k Fkk vkSj D;k gksuk pkfg;sA blds fy;s eqfLye rqyck dh desVh esa ,d cgqr gh [kkl ijksvk eqfLye rqyok dks bl fgUnqvksa dk eMZj djuk QtZ djkj fn;k x;k gS fd og viuh rkfyoqy bYe ds tekus esa ml dke dks iwjk djsaA vxj og bl dke dks iwjk ugha djrk gS rks le>k tk;sxk fd og eqlyeku ds uke ij ,d nkx gSA fgUnqvksa dks eqfLye ;wfuoflZVh ls ekj Hkxkvks] ojuk ;s fpuxkjh dh rjg Qsyus yxs gS vkSj Qsyrs gh jgsaxsA o bl ?kVuk ds fo"k; esa ,d vfHk;ksx vi0 la0 429 /kkjk 124v@153v@295v Hkk0na0fo0 ds vUrxZr iathd`r gqvk Fkk o ftldh foospuk tkjh gS blds QyLo:i lkEiznkf;drk HkM+dkus okys izpkj ds dkj.k vij ftykeftLV~sV ( iz'kklu uxj) ] vyx<+ n~okjk ,d vkns'k vUrxZr /kkjk 144 na0i0l0 ikfjr fd;k x;k ftlesa fo'ks"k :i ls dz0l0 8 ij vafdr fd;k x;k Fkk fd % " dksbZ Hkh O;fDr mDr {ks= esa nhokjksa ij u dksbZ lkEiznkf;d ;k vU; fdlh izdkj ds ukjs fy[ksxk vkSj u gh fdlh izdkj dk vU; ys[k fy[ksxkA" o dze la0 3 ij vafdr Fkk fd dksbZ Hkh O;fDr fdlh Hkh izdkj dk iSEiysV ugha ckaVsxk vkSj u gh fdlh LFkku ij pLik djsxk blds vykok fnukad 7&10&66 dks LFkkuh; vf/klwpuk-------n~okjk Hkh xksiuh; vk[;k izkIr gqbZ Fkh fd yksd O;oLFkk Hkax djus okys minzoh rRo fdz;k'khy gS vkSj ckcjh efLtn izdj.k ,oa d{kkvksa esa eqfLye Nk=ksa ds izos'k esa izfr'kr ,oa miuq;nfr dh Hkkafr vkfn dks ysdj yksd O;oLFkk dks Hkax djuk ,oa lkEiznk;ksa esa dVq ?k`.kk djus esa yxs gSA blds vykok fnukad 10&10&86 dks vyhx<+ eqLyhe fo'o fon~;ky; ifjlj esa lkEiznkf;d Hkkoukvksa dks HkM+dkus okys iksLVj fpidkrs gq;s efLtn xsV ds ikl esa Nk=ksa dks ik;k x;k vkSj muesa ls ,d dks fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;kA bl ?kVuk ds fo"k; esa Hkh ,d vfHk;ksx vi0 la0 473 varxZr /kkjk 188@153v@505 Hkk0n0fo0 ds varxZr iathd`r gqvk tks foospuk/khu gSA blh dze esa vki fnukad 13&10&86 dks jk;y fizfUVax izsl esa vius vU; lkfFk;ksa ds lkFk lkEiznkf;d nqHkkZouk vksa dks HkM+dkus okys o vkifRr tud yksd O;oLFkk Hkax djus okys iSEiysV Nkirs gq;s o i<+rs gq;s ik;s x;s o vki ekSds ij iqfyl n~okjk fxjQ~rkj fd;s x;s mlh le; ?kVukLFky ls dEiksftax fd;k x;k izksQkjek mDr izsl ls ik;s x;sA iSEiysV vkfn vkifRr tud lkexzh o :0 5000@& uxn cjken gq;s ftlds fo"k; esa vijk/k la0 483 /kkjk 24,@153,@295,@ 505 Hkk0n0fo0 ,oa v0l0 484 vUrxZr /kkjk 3@12 izsl jftLV~s'ku cqd vf/kfu;e ds varxZr iathd`r fd;k x;k o ftlesa foospuk ds ckn igys gh vkjksi i= Hkh izsf"kr fd;k tk pqdk gSA mDr fooj.k ls Li"V gS fd vkids }kjk vU; mxzoknh Nk=ksa ds lkFk feydj vfyx<+ eqfLye fo'o@fon~;ky; ifjlj esa o uxj dh yksd O;oLFkk fujUrj Hkax dh tk jgh FkhA vki ,d dq[;kr vijk/kh gS vkSj vkidh nqLlkgfld vijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ksa ls lewps {ks= esa vkard O;kIr gSA vkids dqd`R;ksa ds dkj.k {ks= dh yksd O;oLFkk BIi gks xbZ gS vkSj vke turk ij izfrdwy izHkko iM+ jgk gSA vkids dqd`R;ksa ds dkj.k lewps {ks= esa Hk; Nk x;k gSA vki mDr vijk/k esa ftyk dkjxkj] vfyx<+] esa cUnh gS ijUrq orZeku esa vki rFkk vkids iSjksdkj vkidks NqM+kus dk fujUrj iz;kl dj jgs gS vkSj vki fdlh Hkh le; tsy ls NwV ldrs gSA tsy ls NwVus ds iz'pkr~ {ks= dh turk dks vkils Hk; gS vkSj vkids tsy ls ckgj vkus ij yksd O;oLFkk iw.kZ :i ls Hkax gksxhA mi;qZDr vk/kkjksa ls esjk ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd vki n~okjk ,slh fdlh jhfr esa dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dh lEHkkouk gS tks lkoZtfud O;oLFkk cuk;s j[kus ds fy, izfrdwy gS ls jksdus ds mn~ns'; ;g furkUr vko';d gS fd vkidks rRdky fu:) fd;k tk;sA " 3. There is no doubt the aforesaid pamphlet dated 17-9-1986, which was found on the wall of the University was highly provocative for disturbance of public order. In that pamphlet every Muslim student was called upon to kill ten Hindus during his student days. If he did not do that, he would be treated as a blot on the name of Muslims. Drive away Hindus from the Muslim University otherwise they will spread like fire. On this incident a case crime No. 429 of 1986 under Sections 124-A, 153-A, 295-A, I.P.C. was registered and investigation was going on. Due to that the Additional District Magistrate promulgated an order under S. 144, Cr.P.C. in the city of Aligarh, wherein at serial Nos. 3 and 8 it was emphasised that nobody would write or paste any communal slogan or any other writing on the wall or distribute such materials. Apart from this the secret report dated 7-10-1986 also clearly shows that disruptive elements were engaged in disturbing public order and spreading communal hatred between different communities. Apart from this on 10-10-1986 certain students were found pasting pamphlets in the Aligarh University campus near Masjid Gate and one of them was arrested also. On this incident also a case crime No. 473/86 under S. 188/153-A/505, I.P.C. was registered and it was under investigation. In this background when on 13-10-1986 the petitioner along with his associates was found in his Royal Printing Press Printing and reading the objectionable pamphlets capable of spreading commune acred and disturbing public order, he was arrested by police and recovery of the composed pro form a objectionable pamphlets and Rs. 5000/- was also made on the spot. In this connection a case crime No. 483 under S. 124-A/153-A/500, I.P.C. and a case crime No. 484 under S. 3/12, Press and Registration Books Act were registered. Subsequently on the same material the District Magistrate, Aligarh passed the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the petitioner has absolutely no link or connection with the aforesaid incidents dated 17-9-1986 and 10-10-1986 from which cases-crime No. 429 of 1986 and crime No. 473 of 1986 arose and the accident dated 13-10-1986 has no potentiality to disturb the public order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the petitioner has absolutely no link or connection with the aforesaid incidents dated 17-9-1986 and 10-10-1986 from which cases-crime No. 429 of 1986 and crime No. 473 of 1986 arose and the accident dated 13-10-1986 has no potentiality to disturb the public order. In support of his I-intention he relied on two decisions, namely, Ajay Dixit v. State of U. P., AIR 1985 SC 18 land Sanjeeva Yadav v. State of U. P., 1986 All Cri C 288 : (1986 All LJ 1332). 5. The meaning of expressions "public -larder" and "law and order" and the distinction between them was brought out by the Supreme Court in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740 . Since Sen the position has been settled and their scope has been clarified by various decisions of the Supreme Court. Any contravention of law always affects order, but before it could be said to affect public order it must affect the community or public at large. Public order the even tempo of the life of the community raking the country as a whole or even a specified locality such as city of Aligarh or . Aligarh Muslim University. Acts which affect individuals only and do not disturb the community to the extent, causing general disturbance of the public-tranquillity relate to the problem of law and order only and not to public order. The true distinction between the areas of Taw and order and public order lies upon the degree and extent of reach of an act upon the community or specified locality. The act causing disturbance of public order teed not necessarily differ in nature and quality from a case raising problem of law tod order. The acts similar in nature but committed in different context and circumstances might cause different reactions. In one it might affect specified individuals and, therefore, touches the problem of law aid order only, while in a different setting it might affect public order. Therefore, the question whether an act affects public order or law and order, only has to be determined n each case, on a consideration of its own facts and circumstances. 6. In one it might affect specified individuals and, therefore, touches the problem of law aid order only, while in a different setting it might affect public order. Therefore, the question whether an act affects public order or law and order, only has to be determined n each case, on a consideration of its own facts and circumstances. 6. In the light of what has been observed above when we proceed to examine the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the pamphlet found pasted on the wall in the campus of the Aligarh Muslim University provoking each Muslim student (Tulba) to sill 10 Hindus during his student life was highly provocative and naturally had great potentiality for prejudicial threatening the maintenance of public order. Thereafter an order under S. 144, Cr.P.C. was promulgated by the A.D.M. It was also clear from the secret report dated 7-10-1986 that undesirable elements were engaged in disturbing public order. On 10-10-1986 again certain students were found pasting pamphlets in the University campus near Mod Gate. In this background the Distt. Magistrate passed the detention order against the petitioner on the basis of the incident dated 13-10-1986 only. 7. There is no doubt that in paragraph 10 of his counter affidavit dated 7-2-1987, the District Magistrate has deposed that so far as the crime No. 473 of 1986 is concerned, some students of Aligarh Muslim University had pasted inflammable posters on the wall and the petitioner was also involved in pasting those pamphlets, the petitioner had charged Rs. 5000/- for printing those pamphlets. Thereafter, by a supplementary affidavit filed on 3-4-1987 the same District Magistrate has deposed expressing his deep regrets that the facts stated in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit may be ignored because the incidents dated 17-9-1986 and 10-10-1986 have been enumerated as the background or prelude which reveal the abnormal situation prevailing in the premises of the Aligarh Muslim University. The petitioner was not involved in the two incidents which have occurred on the dates referred to above. However, due to the aforesaid happenings, which took place on 17-9-1986 and 10-10-1986 communal harmony within the premises of the Aligarh Muslim University had been disturbed and the effect and reach of the two activities had the potentiality to disturb the public order. However, due to the aforesaid happenings, which took place on 17-9-1986 and 10-10-1986 communal harmony within the premises of the Aligarh Muslim University had been disturbed and the effect and reach of the two activities had the potentiality to disturb the public order. In this background of the aforesaid two incidents when the recovery of money and pamphlets was made from the person and the press of the petitioner on 13-10-1986 and some of the pamphlets recovered contained such materials which had the potentiality to disturb the communal harmony and public order, the deponent (District Magistrate) passed the order of detention in dispute merely by taking into account the incident dated 13-10-1986. After careful scrutiny of the materials on the record we accept the aforesaid supplementary affidavit of the District Magistrate to this effect that inaccuracy which has crept in paragraph 10 of his counter-affidavit is due to inadvertence or oversight and it should be ignored. In this supplementary affidavit still there is a mistake regarding the date of the incident dated 17-9-1986, which has been described in this affidavit as 17-10-1986. That is obviously wrong. It appears to be a typing error, which has to be ignored. 8. Now the only question remains for our decision in this case is whether the incident dated 10-10-1986 and materials recovered from the petitioners press on 10-10-1986 have potentiality to disturb the public order? From the counter-affidavit and supplementary affidavit of the District Magistrate it is clear that on 13-10-1986 from the possession of the petitioner highly inflammable pamphlets and a cash of Rs. 5000/- given to him for printing such materials, were recovered. The pamphlets which were recovered were kept in a sealed cover and a recovery memo was prepared, a copy of which was handed over to the petitioner. The recovery memo contains all those pamphlets which were taken into possession and the composing materials with regard to the same pamphlets which were also on the machine. It is clear from paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit of the District Magistrate that composing materials with regard to the same pamphlets were also on the machine. These composing materials are commonly known as composing block. This too was taken into possession by the police officials, who effected the search and seizure. It is clear from paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit of the District Magistrate that composing materials with regard to the same pamphlets were also on the machine. These composing materials are commonly known as composing block. This too was taken into possession by the police officials, who effected the search and seizure. The affidavit of the District Magistrate further indicates that while passing the order of detention he had seen the composing block and by putting it on the plain paper it has revealed that this block contains the same fact and materials which is stated in the English leaflets. Thus we have to examine the leaflets (only two English) attached with the petition and find out whether they have the potentiality to disturb the public order- in the background of the aforesaid circumstances prevailing at that time in the city of Aligarh. We find in the English pamphlets certain objectionable passages which definitely have the potentiality to disturb the public order and communal harmony in the aforesaid back-ground. On page 27 of the petition, it is mentioned in English pamphlet as under : "But, alas, their success became an eye sore to the communal Indian Government.", xxx "Dear Friends, Now its our humble duty to save this University from Hinduisation. In this communal India, it is the only place where we can seek for justice, without being discriminated. If Government succeeds in snatching it from...........we will be of nowhere." xxx "Let us not let the Government succeed in their ugly plot." Koi Andaza Kar Sakta Hai Uske Zore Bazu Ka Nig Ahe Marde Momin Se Badal Jati Hain Taqdeerein." 9. Thereafter, on page 30, in question and form many objectionable matters have been printed in the pamphlet, which havethe potentiality to spread hatred between Hindus and Muslims and to disturb public order and communal harmony, for example: "Q Vice-Chancellor Sd., Aapne is University ke minority character kehotehue bhi bahut se courses mein muslims ke dakhley ka khayal nahin rakha hai? Ans., Han, Jab main Osmania mein padhta tha to wahan muslims 55% padhte the, Jab main V. C. Ban kar gaya to 5% Rah gaye they..." "Mr. Vice-Chancellor, you want to turn this University into Aligarh Hindu University just to secure the medal of so-called secularism from the enemies of the University." 10. Factual correctness of ground is not necessary for making detention. Vice-Chancellor, you want to turn this University into Aligarh Hindu University just to secure the medal of so-called secularism from the enemies of the University." 10. Factual correctness of ground is not necessary for making detention. It is clearly held by the Supreme Court in Ajay Dixit's case, AIR 1985 SC 18 (supra) that there is no formula by which one case can be distinguished from another. It is, therefore, necessary in each case to examine the facts to determine, not the sufficiency of the grounds, nor the truth of the grounds, but nature of the grounds alleged and see whether they are relevant or not for considering whether the detention of the detinue is necessary for maintenance of public order. 11. After careful scrutiny of the ground of detention read as a whole leaves to room for doubt that incidents dated 17-9-1986 and 10-10-1986 mentioned in the ground of detention are only by way of introduction or as a prelude. In substance they only indicate the circumstances prevailing at that time in the campus of the University and City of Aligarh. The incident dated 13-10-1986 mentioned in the aforesaid ground of detention alleged a specific part played by the petitioner in printing those pamphlets which have the potentiality to spread communal hatred. On the perusal of the ground of detention as a whole the view taken by the District Magistrate, the detaining authority cannot be said to be without any basis or unjustified. 12. In view of the above discussions, we find that the situation in Aligarh University during those days was tense and very much surcharged with communal hatred due to Babri Masjid and admission of students in Aligarh Muslim University, and it had taken an ugly and serious turn during those days when the aforesaid material was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He was paid Rs. 5000/- for publishing such objectionable pamphlets. The statement of facts mentioned in the ground and the materials recovered on 13-10-1986 from the press of the petitioner clearly establish that in the prevalent circumstances in the University and the City of Aligarh the detention order in dispute, passed by the District Magistrate, Aligarh against the petitioner is fully justified and need no interference by this Court. The statement of facts mentioned in the ground and the materials recovered on 13-10-1986 from the press of the petitioner clearly establish that in the prevalent circumstances in the University and the City of Aligarh the detention order in dispute, passed by the District Magistrate, Aligarh against the petitioner is fully justified and need no interference by this Court. All the aforesaid cases cited on behalf of the petitioner are distinguishable on facts from this case and they are of no help to the petitioner. 13. In the result the petition fails and is dismissed.