BHAIRAVIA, J. ( 1 ) [his Lordships after stating the facts of the case further observed :]. . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . The privilege exercised by the detaining authority in the present case under Sec. 9 (2) of the Act is not available to the detaining authority as the privilege exercised by the detaining authority is "in the interest of public order" and not "in the public interest". The phraseology of using words "public order" instead of "public interest" has vitiated the privilege order. Relevant section is very clear that the privilege is to be exercised under Sec. 9 (2) of the Act only in the matter of "public interest" and not "in the interest of public order". The detaining authority has committed blunder is using words "public order" instead of words "public interest". There was no requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority for passing the impugned order under Sec. 9 (2 ). (Rest of the Judgment is not material for the Reports.) .