JUDGMENT (ORAL) M.L. Dudhat, J. - The only important point involved in this case is that the three incidences which are relied by the detaining authority for issuing impugned order of detention concerns about the "law and order" or about "public order". It is contended by Mr. Karmali, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the incidences relied by the detaining authority pertain to law and order situation and not public order and, therefore, the impugned order of detention is beyond the scope of Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 and, therefore, is illegal, void and inoperative. Few facts which are material for the disposal of this writ petition are as under: 2. The petitioner who is the wife of the detenu filed this writ petition challenging the detention order which is at Exh. F dated 14th January 1991 issued by the 3rd Respondent. In the grounds of the said detention order, a reference is made to the three incidences on the basis of which the earlier detention order dated 16th August 1990 and re-detention order of 14th January 1991 were issued against the detenu. The three incidences as alleged by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention are as under: "I. On 2-6-1990 at about 13.00 hours Shri Peter Dasan Nadar, aged 38 years, R/o. Geeta Nagar Hutment, Hut No. AGW-269, Colaba was standing in front of his hut. At that time you along with your associate Anil Khairo approached Shri Nadar and took him aside. You alleged that he (Shri Nadar) had complained against you suddenly caught hold of Shri Nadar. Shri Nadar while trying to get free from your clutches gave jerk with the result he (Shri Nadar) fell on the ground and you caught hold of his hair and struck his head on the ground due to which Shri Nadar sustained bleeding injury to his right ear. Thereafter you and your said associate gave fist blows and kicked Shri Nadar. On seeing you and your associate belabouring Shri Nadar, the residents of the nearby huts got frightened and closed their doors. When you and your associate noticed bleeding injury to Nadar's right ear, left the place. Thereafter injured Shri Nadar was taken to the St. George's Hospital where he was treated and allowed to go. On seeing you and your associate belabouring Shri Nadar, the residents of the nearby huts got frightened and closed their doors. When you and your associate noticed bleeding injury to Nadar's right ear, left the place. Thereafter injured Shri Nadar was taken to the St. George's Hospital where he was treated and allowed to go. In this connection, against you a case under section 337-114, IPC was registered at Colaba Police Station vide C.R.No. 345/90. Subsequently the charge was altered to section 324-114, IPC. After commission of this offence, you remained at large. II On 20-7-1990 at about 06.30 hours Shri Peter Dasan Nadar, aged 38 years, Rio. Geeta Nagar Hutment, Hut No. AGE-269, Colaba, Bombay, was sitting on his bed. At that time, you along with your associate Mondya armed with knives went to Shri Peter Nadar and gave blows of knives on Shri Nadar's stomach, right hand, left knee and back with the result Shri Peter Nadar started bleeding from the injuries sustained by him. You and your said associate then pushed Shri Peter Nadar into "MORI" (Bathroom). Shri Peter Nadar's wife who was steeping in the hut got up and started shouting. On hearing cries the neighbours collected but none dared to intervene. You and your said associate then left the place with open knives in the hands. The injured Peter Nadar was removed to St. George's Hospital where he was admitted for treatment. In this connection, a case under section 324-114, IPC was registered against you and your said associate at Colaba Police Station vide C.R. No. 404/90. After commission of this offence you remained at large. III. On 20-7-1990 at about 20.00 hrs., Smt. Sulochana Janu Dhamankar, aged 40 years, R/o. Geeta Nagar Hutment, Hut No. 239, Colaba, Bombay was standing in front of her hut. At that time you along with your associate Peter, Luise and Augustin armed with lathies went near Smt. Sulochana Janu Dhamankar. Your associate Peter give a blow of lathi on Smt. Sulochana's forehead. Your associate Luise gave blow of lathi on Sulochana's right shoulder. You and your associate Augustin gave blows of lathies on Sulochana's right side waist. On seeing you and your said associates assaulting Smt. Sulochana Janu Dhainankar with lathies, the residents of the vicinity got frightened and closed their doors and none dared to rescue Smt. Sulochana. Your associate Luise gave blow of lathi on Sulochana's right shoulder. You and your associate Augustin gave blows of lathies on Sulochana's right side waist. On seeing you and your said associates assaulting Smt. Sulochana Janu Dhainankar with lathies, the residents of the vicinity got frightened and closed their doors and none dared to rescue Smt. Sulochana. When Smt. Sulochana Janu Dhamankar fell on the ground, you and your said associates left the place. Injured Smt. Sulochana Janu Dhamankar was removed to St. George's Hospital where she was admitted for treaUllent. In this connection a case under section 325114 IPC was registered against you and your said associates at Colaba Police Station vide C.R.No. 408/90." 3. After going through the afroesaid three incidences, we are of the opinion that each one of the said incidences can be dealt with by ordinary law and cannot come within the ambit of subsection (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, more particularly "from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order". As held in several cases by the Supreme Court, the provisions of the National Security Act are not to be made applicable in cases where ordinary law is in a position to cope with the situation. According to us, the three cases referred to in the detention order are not such so as to create maintenance of public order situation. We have also meticulously gone through the affidavit filed by Respondent No.3. In paragraphs 14 and 15 of the said affidavit, Respondent No.3 contended that the said three incidences has nexus with the maintenance of public order and, therefore, the detaining authority was justified in issuing the impugned order. We are not in agreement with the said contention as according to us, the three cases referred to in the detention order can come within the ambit of ordinary law and can be dealt with accordingly. At this stage we may further mention the statement made by the learned Counsel Mr. Karmali on behalf of the detenu that in fact in future, he intends to lend a peaceful life with his neighbours. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, we set aside and quash the impugned order dated 14th January 1991 which is at Exh. F. Writ petition is allowed and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Karmali on behalf of the detenu that in fact in future, he intends to lend a peaceful life with his neighbours. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, we set aside and quash the impugned order dated 14th January 1991 which is at Exh. F. Writ petition is allowed and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Detenu is ordered to be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case or cases as the case may be. Petition allowed.