JUDGMENT (ORAL) Kurdukar, J.- The first respondent who is the Detaining Authority and Commissioner of Policy, Thane, in exercise of powers under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, on April 3, 1992 issued an order detaining Shri Pandharinath Laxman Waringe with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention order is Annexure ‘A’. Grounds of detention are Annexure 'C'. The petitioner who is wife of the detenu has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and correctness of the detention order. 2. The impugned order of detention is founded on 4 incidents which took place between June 2, 1990 and September 13, 1991. In addition to these 4 incidents, the detaining authority also relied upon two in camera statements recorded on March 4, 1992 of ‘A’ and ‘B’ with reference to the incidents that took place on November 27, 1991 and November 30, 1991 respectively. 3. The detaining authority in paragraph 2, by way of preamble has set out the fact of earlier detention order issued under the Act on December 6, 1989 which came to be challenged in this Court in writ petition No. 99 of 1990. This Court vide its order dated March 29, 1999 ordered release of the detenu. The detaining authority thereafter relied upon the 4 incidents and 2 in camera statements which are referred to in the succeeding paragraphs. 4. Before we deal with the grounds on which the, impugned order is founded, it may be stated that the earlier detention order was set aside by this Court and the detenu was ordered to be released on March 29, 1990 arid in fact he was released on March 30, 1990. Immediately after the release from the first detention order the 4 incidents which were relied upon by the detaining authority took place on these dates namely 2-6-1990; 12-7-1990; 12-12-1990 and 13-9-1991. 5. Coming to the first incident dated June 2, 1990, C.R. No. 1-70/90 came to be registered for offences under sections 384, 363, 355, 506(2), 341, 147, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act. This C.R. was registered on a complaint filed by Shri Avinash Madhav Shringarpure. He is a Builder by profession along with his one partner Shri Lalit Chopda. This C.R. was registered on a complaint filed by Shri Avinash Madhav Shringarpure. He is a Builder by profession along with his one partner Shri Lalit Chopda. They claimed to have acquired city survey plot Nos. 6901 to 6907 for development from one Smt. Draupadibai Arjun Rane. It is alleged by the complainant that on June 2, 1990 when Lalit Chopda was in his cloth shop at Kulgaon, detenu and his associates came to him with an intention to extort Rs. 1,00,000/- and a flat from the proposed development scheme. The detenu and his associates threatened Mr. Chopda and forced to him to sit in their car Chopda was then brought to the house of complainant who was busy with his business matters. Detenu and his associates asked the complainant to accompany them on the road. Sensing danger complainant did not come out of his house. The detenu and his associates had gone to the house of the complainant with a view to terrorise not only the complainant but also inmates. Due to fear wife of the complainant started making hue and cry and at that stage detenu took out a revolver whereas his associate Tiwari whipped out one knife and asked them to keep quiet and thereafter they started assaulting the complainant. Complainant and Chopda were assaulted by the detenu and his associates. They were requesting the detenu and his associates not to assault. As against this the detenu and his associates were demanding payment of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The detenu thereafter threatened the complainant and told him that in case if he does not pay Rs. 1,00,000/- then he and his wife will be murdered. It is then recited in this ground that complainant out of fear did not lodge any complainant immediately. During investigation the detenu came to be arrested on June 5, 1990 and was released on bail on June 11, 1990 by the Court. The criminal case is sub-judice. 6. Ground (b) relates to possession of Rampuri knife by the detenu in public place in contravention of prohibitory order issued on June 28, 1990. It is stated in this ground that on July 12, 1990 Shri V.S. Kulkarni, Police constable and other staff headed by P.S.I. Lohar were on patrolling duty in Shivajinagar area in Ambarnath town at about 22.30 hours when they noticed the detenu moving in suspicious circumstances. It is stated in this ground that on July 12, 1990 Shri V.S. Kulkarni, Police constable and other staff headed by P.S.I. Lohar were on patrolling duty in Shivajinagar area in Ambarnath town at about 22.30 hours when they noticed the detenu moving in suspicious circumstances. The detenu was thereafter taken to the police station. Mr. Kulkarni lodged a complaint which came to be registered by Ambarnath police station being C.R. No. II-52/90 under section 37(1) read with section 135 of Bombay Police Act. Detenu came to be arrested in this case but, however, he was released on bail by the Court on July 13, 1990. Criminal case is pending in the Court. 7. Ground (c) refers to an incident of murderous assault on Pendurang Mhatre on December 12, 1990 at about 15.00 hours. An offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to the registered Vide C.R.No. I-388/90 by Ambarnath Police Station. In this case Pradeep Mahadev Mhatre is a complainant who is resident of Shivajinagar Ambarnath. He is a rickshaw driver by profession. Vinod Pawar, Datta Dharma Gore are the associates of the detenu and they were on cross terms with one Mukund Maruti Mhatre, a cousin of Pradeep Mhatre for some reasons. On the date of incident Mukund Mhatre and his cousin Pandurang Tukaram Mhatre had gone to their uncle's house- Mahadev Bhiku Mhatre to give message as regards marriage of their sister. After giving message when they were returning to their house detenu and his three associates viz. Sanjay Shirke, Vinod Pawar and Kishor Pawar came in rickshaw from opposite direction, accosted Mukund Mhatre and injured Panduran Mhatre in the busy locality at Shivajinagar in front of Ganapat temple. The detenu and his associates were having choppers in their hands. They started assaulting Pandurong Mhatre with choppers. This assault resulted into multiple grievous injuries on his person. Mukund Maruti Mhatre out of fear fled away. Victim Pandurang Mhatre was then taken in rickshaw to the police station and, thereafter to the hospital at Ulhasnagar where he succumbed to injuries even before admission. It is then specifically stated in this ground that although name of the detenu was not found in the first information report because Mukund Mhatre who was the eye witness had fled away and he was absconding for nearly six months. It is then specifically stated in this ground that although name of the detenu was not found in the first information report because Mukund Mhatre who was the eye witness had fled away and he was absconding for nearly six months. His statement was recorded after six months wherein he had stated that the detenu and his associates were the assailants of Pandurang Mhatre. Detenu was then arrested in some other C.R. by Oshiwara police station on December 21, 1991. During investigation of that case he made a statement which led to the recovery of chopper on December 23, 1991 which was used during assault on Pandurang. He also made a statement which led to the recovery of country-made pistol on December 28, 1991. After completing the investigation chargesheet against the detenu came to be filed on March 18, 1992. The detenu was ordered to be released by the Court on bail of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in like amount which he availed of on April 3, 1992. The criminal case is sub judice. 8. The incident referred to in ground (d) took place on September 13, 1991 in which Vilas Sadashiv Nikam the complainant is a victim. It is alleged by the complainant that on 13-9-1991 at about 13.30 hours complainant and his various friends were sitting in the house of one Madhu Bhau Gondhali. At that time detenu came to Madhu Gondhali' s house with pistol along with his associates Sunil Chavan and Rahul alias Gotya Deshmukh who were having the choppers. The detenu and his associates then threatened the complainant and his friends and told them not to move from the place. The detenu and his associates thereafter assaulted the complainant and his friends. This incident happened because the complainant is on good terms with one Tulsiram Kadam. The detenu was insisting that complainant and his friend Tulsiram Kadam should join his criminal activities to which they were not willing. At the time of incident the detenu fired through his pistol indiscriminately in the broad day light in a residential locality and created a commotion. Because of these prejudicial activities the residents in the localities were caught in panic and they started running helter skelter in search of some shelter. They also closed their doors and windows to save their lives. Nobody even dared to come out and resultantly their day's routine was disturbed. Because of these prejudicial activities the residents in the localities were caught in panic and they started running helter skelter in search of some shelter. They also closed their doors and windows to save their lives. Nobody even dared to come out and resultantly their day's routine was disturbed. The even tempo of life in that area was disturbed. Such prejudicial activities undertaken by the detenu and his associates are causing alarm in the minds of the residents in that locality and as a result of these activities even tempo of life in that area is disturbed. The detenu in this case was also absconding after the incident. He was, however arrested by Oshiwara police station on 21-12-1991 in regard to the crime registered by the said police station and thereafter the detenu came to be shown arrested on 30-12-1991. The detenu was again ordered to be released on bail by the Court which he availed on 3-4-1992. In this case chargesheet has been filed against the detenu on 31-1-1992. The criminal case is sub-judice. 9. The detaining authority then relied upon the two in camera statements of A and B which were recorded on 4-3-1992. It is stated in the grounds of detention that because of the terrorising activities of the detenu and his associates many residents who are the victims at the hands of the detenu and his associates do not pick up courage to come and give evidence openly against them. The police officers however assured these residents that their names and addresses will be kept secret and after getting such assurance witnesses A and B came forward, whose statements came to be recorded in camera. Witness A refers to the incident which took place on 27- 11-1991 in which it was stated that detenu and his associates asked the witness to pay Rs. 10,000/-. When the witness expressed his inability they threatened him by saying that his hands and legs will be broken. The witness has further stated that number of complaints against the detenu and his gang members were lodged for threatening the builders and businessmen. After coming to know that detenu has been arrested the witness felt relieved and therefore gave this statement. There is every danger to his life. The statement of B which was recorded on 4-3-1992 again refers to the incident which took place on 30-11-1991. After coming to know that detenu has been arrested the witness felt relieved and therefore gave this statement. There is every danger to his life. The statement of B which was recorded on 4-3-1992 again refers to the incident which took place on 30-11-1991. In this incident also the detenu and his associates came in a rickshaw and whipped out a knife and at the point of knife demanded ransom amount of Rs. 25,000/-. B was short of funds at that time. The detenu forcibly took away an amount of Rs. 5,000/- which was in the cash box. Detenu and his associates then threatened the witness not to lodge any complaint and if any such complaint is lodged to the police consequences will be more serious. It is because of this threat the witness has stated that he did not lodge any complaint till this time. 10. The sponsoring authority placed the material in connection with these incidents before the detaining authority for its consideration and passing appropriate orders. The detaining authority after considering the said material was subjectively satisfied and opined that the detenu has been indulging in violent and terrorising activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order at Katrap Shirgaon village, Shivajinagar, Ambarnath and its surrounding areas now in the jurisdiction of Kulgaon Police Chowky, Ambarnath Police Station falling under Thane Police Commissionerate. The detaining authority was also subjectively satisfied that the residents in these localities are feeling insecure and they are constantly living under the shadow of fear and even tempo of the society is disturbed. It is this subjective satisfaction which called upon the detaining authority to exercise its power under section 3(2) of the Act in passing the impugned detention order. It is this order which is assailed on several grounds by Mr. Shirish Gupte, learned counsel appearing in support of this petition. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly urged that there is breach of fundamental right guaranteed under article 22(5) of the Constitution on the part of the Central Government while not considering and disposing of the detenu's representation expeditiously. In order to appreciate this submission it would be necessary to set out few dates. The representation of the detenu is dated 24-4-992. It was received by the Jail Authority on the same day. On 27-4-1992 the Jail Authority forwarded the same to the Central Government. In order to appreciate this submission it would be necessary to set out few dates. The representation of the detenu is dated 24-4-992. It was received by the Jail Authority on the same day. On 27-4-1992 the Jail Authority forwarded the same to the Central Government. Central Government received it on 1-5-1992. On 5-5-1992 Central Government sent a wireless message to the State Government to furnish some vital information. This vital information was received by the Central Government on 20-5-1992. After considering this vital information and the para wise comments the Central Government took decision to reject the same on 28-5-1992. The decision was communicated to the jail authority by wireless message followed by a communication dated 4-6-1992. 12. Mr. Gupte urged that in the first place there was delay of about 15 days on the part of the State Government or the detaining authority to forward the parawise comments. It covers the period between 5-5-1992 to 20-5-1992. He then urged that despite the receipt of the information and the parawise comments by the Central Government on 20-5-1992 it took nearly 8 days to dispose of the detenu's representation which period according to the learned counsel does not reflect the expeditious disposal of the representation by the Central Government. Lastly he urged that the Central Government took nearly 8 days to communicate its decision and on this score also the continued detention cannot be held legal. 13. Before we consider the submissions raised by Mr. Gupte in this behalf we may indicate few more dates which have got impact on the consideration of plea as regards delay in disposing of the detenu’s representation. Impugned order was issued and served upon the detenu on 3-4-1992. The wife of the detenu filed this present petition on 21-4-1992. Petition was circulated for admission on 27-4-1992 and the rule nisi was made returnable in 8 weeks. The Advisory Board sent its report to the State Government on 14-5-1992. It is in this context we have to consider as to whether there has been a delay on the part of the Central Government in disposing of detenu's representation and if there is any delay is it of such a nature which would vitiate the continued detention on ground of infraction of article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 14. Mr. 14. Mr. Ishwar Singh, Desk Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs has filed the return on behalf of Union of India: In paragraph 6, it has been stated that on receipt of the representation on 1-5-1992 it was immediately processed and since some vital information was necessary a wireless message was sent to the State Government on 5-5-1992. This wireless message was produced before us during the course of hearing. Vital information needed by the Central Government was as under:- 1. Order of detention; (2) date of actual detention; and (3) Information as regards report of the Advisory Board. The State Government on receipt of the said wireless message on 2-5-1992 forwarded the necessary information by wireless message on 6-5-1992 (see affidavit of Shri Kelkar dated 9-7-1992). In the wireless message dated 5-5-1992 the State Government was also requested to forward parawise comments to the representation. A copy of this representation was received by the detaining authority on 8-5-1992. On 12-5-1992 the detaining authority forwarded the parawise comments by post (See paragraph 28 of the affidavit of the detaining authority dated 4-7-1992). These parawise comments were received by the Central Government on 20-5-1992. In view of these dates we are of the opinion that the first contention relating to the delay of 15 days between 5-5-1992 and 20-5-1992 has no merit. 15. Coming to the leg of delay between 20-5-1992 and 28-5-1992, Mr. Ishwar Singh in paragraph 7 of his affidavit-in-reply has stated that the representation along with material was put up before the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, on 21-5-1992 who after careful consideration with his comments put up the same before the Special Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 22-5-1992. The said Special Secretary after processing the material and representation placed it before the Home Minister on 23-5-1992. Home Minister himself considered the detenu' s representation and rejected the same on 28-5-1992. In our opinion having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case there does not seem to be any laches on the part of the Central Government in disposing of the detenu's representation expeditiously. 16. As far as the communication is concerned it was brought to our notice that the Central Government vide its wireless message dated 3-6-1992 communicated to the jail authority about the rejection of the detenu's representation followed by a written communication by post on 4-6-1992 and served on detenu on 15-6-1992. 16. As far as the communication is concerned it was brought to our notice that the Central Government vide its wireless message dated 3-6-1992 communicated to the jail authority about the rejection of the detenu's representation followed by a written communication by post on 4-6-1992 and served on detenu on 15-6-1992. Both these communications were sent to Pune Jail authority because detenu was initially lodged there. Since during this period he was shifted to Bombay, the said communications were redirected to Bombay jail authority for service. From the record produced before us we find that there was no delay at any stage. First contention therefore fails. 17. It was then urged by Mr. Gupte that there has been long delay in issuing the detention order. From the first incident the detention order came to be issued after about 1 year and 5 months whereas from the last incident dated 13-9-1991 it was issued after 3 months. Mr. Gupte therefore urged that this delayed action on the part of the detaining authority clearly exhibits non application of mind to the fact that the live link was snapped because of the intervening period. He also urged that there is no nexus between the alleged prejudicial activities and the order and, therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. Mr. Gupte took us through the grounds of detention as well as the relevant material relied upon by the detaining authority. In this behalf Mr. Gupte drew our attention to para 14 in the writ petition. The detaining authority in paragraph 19 of the affidavit dated 4-7-1992 has denied that live link between the incident and detention order has been snapped. He also denied that his subjective satisfaction was vitiated. As far as this submission is concerned in our opinion, it does not hold any merit. The detaining authority in the grounds of detention has categorically referred to its subjective satisfaction based upon not only the 4 incidents but also by reference to the preamble to the grounds of detention. What is material to note is that the detenu was released by this Court from the earlier detention order on 30-3-1990. What is required to be seen is as to whether detenu has revived his prejudicial activities after his release. What is material to note is that the detenu was released by this Court from the earlier detention order on 30-3-1990. What is required to be seen is as to whether detenu has revived his prejudicial activities after his release. If the dates of these 4 incidents are taken into account it is quite clear that the detenu again reverted back to the same prejudicial activities and he was involved inasmuch as 3 Indian Penal Code cases out of which one relates to an offence under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. The last incident took place on 13-9-1991. He was found absconding and came to be first arrested on 21-12-1991. He was shown arrested on 30-12-1991 and chargesheet in this behalf was filed on 31-1-1992. Apart from this the detenu was released on bail in incident No.4, (d) on 3-4-1992. If the chain of prejudicial activities is taken into account with the fact that the detenu was absconding and after in arrest he was released on bill on 3-4-1992, then in our opinion the impugned order issued on 3-4-1992 cannot be branded either as a delayed order and/or based on stale incidents which have no nexus to the impugned order. It is well settled that it is the criminal potentiality and the tendency of the detenu which is required to be assessed by the detaining authority before reaching a subjective satisfaction and it is in this context if the incidents in question relied upon by the detaining authority are considered, we are unable to agree with Mr. Gupte that the subjective satisfaction was vitiated. 18. Mr. Gupte then assailed each of the grounds with reference to the date of incident and the order of detention. It was contended that first incident dated 2-6-1990 is stale and suffers from non-application of mind. (See ground No. xix). He also urged that the impugned order clearly exhibits non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority to a document at page 42 which is a statement of the detenu dated 5-6-1990 giving explanation. He further urged that no conclusion is reflected in the grounds of detention and, therefore, it must follow that the detaining authority has not considered the vital material placed before him regarding this ground. He further urged that no conclusion is reflected in the grounds of detention and, therefore, it must follow that the detaining authority has not considered the vital material placed before him regarding this ground. The detaining authority in paragraph 24 of his affidavit has denied the averment on oath and has stated that he has gone through all the documents placed before him and after going through the documents he has called out the grounds of detention. It is also well settled that after receipt of the proposal for detention alongwith material from the sponsoring authority the detaining authority will apply his mind to the material placed before him and, there from would cull out the grounds of detention which are supported by material placed before him. There is a presumption that the official act has been done in accordance with law and more particularly in this case when the detaining authority has stated on oath that it has considered the material placed before him. We do not see any reason to discard the statement of the detaining authority made on oath. 19. It was then contended by Mr. Gupte that as far as ground (c) relating to the incident dated 12-12-1990 is concerned, the first information report which was filled on 12-12-1990 did not contain the name of the detenu and it was first time spelt out from the statement of Mukund Maruti Mhatre recorded on 5-12-1991 and there from. No evidentiary value whatsoever could be attached to such a belated statement of mukund who himself is a self confessed criminal. We are afraid having regard to the powers of a writ court in habeas corpus petition it would not be permissible for us to consider the truthfulness or otherwise of such a statement unless it appears to the Court that such a statement was totally false and no prudent man will accept such a statement. We do not see any reason to doubt in the present proceedings the involvement of the detenu in the incident dated 12-121990. 20. It was then contended by Mr. Gupte that there is a speaking order made by the Sessions Judge at page 130 of the compilation which was not considered by the detaining authority because it is not so referred to in the grounds of detention. 20. It was then contended by Mr. Gupte that there is a speaking order made by the Sessions Judge at page 130 of the compilation which was not considered by the detaining authority because it is not so referred to in the grounds of detention. We are unable to agree with this contention because it is not law that the detaining authority must refer to each and every document which was placed before him and copy thereof was furnished to the detenu. Wednesday, July 22, 1992 21. Mr. Gupte in order to support his contention relating to delay in issuing the order and staleness thereof drew our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar v. Shri S. Ramamurthi and others1. Pointedly he drew our attention to paragraph 13 of the said judgment wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under: "Coming to the case on hand, the detention order was passed after 5 months and 8 days from the date of the registration of the last case and more than 4 months from submission of the proposal. What disturbs our mind is that the statement from the witnesses. A to E were obtained only after the detenu became successful in getting bail in all the prohibition cases registered against him, that too in the later part of March 1991. These statements are very much referred to in the grounds of detention and relied upon by the detaining authority along with the registration of the cases under the Act." In this case the Supreme Court revoked the order of detention against the appellant Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar. In the very same judgment the Supreme Court has laid down that no hard and fast rule can be precisely formulated that would be applicable under all circumstances and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down in that behalf. (See para 9). This principle was laid down as far back as in the year 1981 in the case of Hemlata Kantilal Shah v. State of Maharashtra2. The Supreme Court in this case observed delay ipso facto in passing an order of detention after an incident is not fatal to the detention of a person, for, in certain cases delay many be unavoidable and reasonable. What is required by law is that the delay must be satisfactorily examined by the detaining authority." 22. The Supreme Court in this case observed delay ipso facto in passing an order of detention after an incident is not fatal to the detention of a person, for, in certain cases delay many be unavoidable and reasonable. What is required by law is that the delay must be satisfactorily examined by the detaining authority." 22. In Paturkar's case (supra) there was no explanation whatsoever and from the grounds of detention also nothing could be found as to why detention order came to be made after 5 months and 8 days. In the case before us we find that there are series of prejudicial activities in which the detenu was found involved. When the detenu was released on bail on 3-4-1992 the detaining authority immediately felt it necessary to issue the detention order under the Act with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is in this context it the impugned order issued on 3-4-1992 is considered, in our opinion it cannot be said that the said order suffers from vice of either delay or staleness. 23. After considering the rival contentions on this topic, we are of the opinion that in the present case it is the cumulative effect of all the prejudicial activities which has been taken into account by the detaining authority while reaching the subjective satisfaction. The prejudicial activities reflected in the grounds of detention, .in our opinion clearly exhibit the criminal potentiality of the detenu to revert to such activities which would affect the maintenance of public order. The second submission raised by Mr. Gupte has no substance and must stand rejected. 24. It was then urged by Mr. Gupte that according to the detaining authority the proposal in respect of the detenu was received along with the material on 3-4-1992 and on the same day he considered the material, formulated the grounds and issued the detention order. Submission is that it is next to impossibility to issue the order on the same day. He also tried to impress upon us that it was totally impossible to obtain the certified copy of the bail order on 3-4-1992 and forward the same along with other papers to the detaining authority for its consideration. Submission is that it is next to impossibility to issue the order on the same day. He also tried to impress upon us that it was totally impossible to obtain the certified copy of the bail order on 3-4-1992 and forward the same along with other papers to the detaining authority for its consideration. The latter part of the argument is misconceived because bail order was passed by the trial Court on 30-3-1992 and, in our opinion, there was sufficient time for the sponsoring authority to obtain the copy of the said order and forward the same to the detaining authority, along with other papers on 3-4-1992. 25. Coming to the first leg of argument relating to impossibility in passing the order on the same day the detaining authority in paragraph 12 of his affidavit dated 4-7-1992 has stated on oath that he received the proposal along with the material on 3-4-1992 and further stated, "On going through the said proposal and the documents, I was subjectively satisfied and therefore, issued the detention order against the detenu on the same day i.e. on 3-4-1992". We do not see any reason to disbelieve the statement of the detaining authority on oath. A swift action in this case was necessitated because in the past the detenu was found absconding. 26. It was faintly urged before us by Mr. Gupte that two vital documents at pages 48 and 49 in the compilation are illegible. We ourselves have seen the documents which were served upon the detenu and we are satisfied that this contention does not hold any merit. Both the documents are sufficiently legible. 27. Lastly it was urged by Mr. Gupte that the impugned detention order based on incident (b) dated 12-7-1990 relating to carrying a Rampuri knife in the pocket despite the prohibitory order. It does not fall within the domain of public order and at the most it may be law and order. In the context of the present case it will have to be held that the said ground would fall within the domain of public order and not law and order. The other incidents which are relied upon by the detaining authority clearly indicate that the detenu was all along creating a terror in the localities referred to in the grounds of detention. At all times he was found carrying a lethal weapon and committed serious offence. The other incidents which are relied upon by the detaining authority clearly indicate that the detenu was all along creating a terror in the localities referred to in the grounds of detention. At all times he was found carrying a lethal weapon and committed serious offence. On 12-7-1990 the detenu was found during odd hours moving in suspicious circumstances and at that times he was found carrying a Rampuri knife. In these circumstances, in our opinion, this ground also falls in the area of public order and not law and order. 28. Thus there is no merit in the writ petition. Writ petition to stand dismissed. Rule discharged. Petition dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. J.T. 1992 (3) S.C. 261. 2. (1981) 4 S.C.C. 647 .