JUDGMENT : H.L. Agrawal, C.J. and P.C. Misra, J. - This application for habeas corpus has been filed for release of the Petitioner?s brother Jitu @ Binod Behari Mohapatra detained in pursuance of the order dated 12-8-1988 (Annexure -1) passed u/s 3(2) of the National Sectionurity Act. In support of the order of detention several instances involving the Petitioner in various criminal activities during the years 1983 to 1986 have been cited by the State. Obviously, those can only be said to be backgrounds, and for passing the order of detention in the month of August, 1988, they cannot be and could not have been utilised as substantive grounds as being too remote and stale. That apart, the Petitioner has filed copies of the judgments to show that in some cases the detenu has already been acquitted. Be that as it may, the main ground which induced the detaining authority to pass the impugned order is an incident which took place on 27-7-1988. It is alleged that on that day at about 10.00 p.m. the detenu and his associates being armed with deadly weapons entered the premises of Sulav Sauchalay at Bhubaneswar bus stand and demanded Rs. 20/- from the Collection Agent and that on his refusal the detenu assaulted him. A case was accordingly registered against the detenu u/s 341/348/324/34 of the Indian Indian Penal Code. To make out a case of public 'order' it has been further alleged that the neighbours who had intended to come to the rescue of the Collection Agent could not dare to come to the place of occurrence? as the culprits were armed with deadly weapons. 2. It has submitted on behalf of the detenu that the ground in question can by no stretch of imagination be said to be affecting the 'public order' within the meaning of the Act and at best it can be said to be disturbing the law and order. It was vehemently submitted by the learned Government Advocate that since the Petitioner was a habitual criminal, it was in the fitness of things that the order of detention had been passed against him. 3. Various criminal cases, a list of which has been given, apart from being committed between 1983 and 1986 as already stated earlier, are u/s 127, 148, 319, IPC and the like. Only two cases of the year 1985 are u/s 392, IPC. 4. 3. Various criminal cases, a list of which has been given, apart from being committed between 1983 and 1986 as already stated earlier, are u/s 127, 148, 319, IPC and the like. Only two cases of the year 1985 are u/s 392, IPC. 4. We have given our anxious consideration to the facts of the case, and on the allegations made against the detenu with respect to the occurrence of 27-7-1988, it is difficult to hold that the overt acts of the detenu would amount to disturbing the 'public order' which has been discussed by this time in a catena of decisions and need not be elaborated here. There is no allegation that at the time of the occurrence, i.e. 10:00 p.m. the overt act of the detenu and his associates disturbed the even tempo of life or that the public order was in any way disturbed. The learned Government Advocate has cited some authorities, but we deliberately refrain from noticing any of them as in those cases the allegations made constituted disturbance of the 'public order' and the 'even tempo of life'. 5. For the reasons discussed above, this application must succeed. It is accordingly allowed and the order of detention (Annexure-1) is hereby quashed. The detenu Jitu alias Binod Behari Mohapatra be set at liberty forthwith if his detention is not otherwise required. Final Result : Allowed