Judgment G. Malaviya, J. 1. Petitioner, Narendra Kumar was detained by an order dated 31-3-93 passed by the District Magistrate, Nainital under section 3(2) of the National Security Act. The order of detention states that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 2. The grounds furnished to this petition indicate that on 12-12-90 at about 9.15 P.M. when one Harbansh Lal was sitting in his factory office, the petitioner along with other police personnels went there and alleged that there was some lead lying in his Godown which was not legally permissible. Harbansh Lal said that he had acquired the lead validly and showed the paper. The police party did not agree and snatched away Rs. 50,000/- and went away in the Ambassador Car in which they had come. The other ground in support of the ground mentions that the petitioner on 20-1-93 at about 9.00 P.M. along with two other police persons manhandled his follow constable Suresh Chandra Sharma in respect of which a N.C.R. Case No. 21/93 under section 323/504 IPC was lodged at the police station. A copy off the F.I.R. was furnished to the petitioner and it was mentioned that on the basis of the report the S.S.P. was proceeding against the petitioner. 3. The third ground against the petitioner was that on 20-3-93 one Maruti Van bearing No. U.P-7/1718 followed by truck No. UTH 451 approached the check barrier in a high speed. Sub-Inspector Anil Kumar Singh and his companion gave signal far Maruti Van and the Truck to stop but the vehicle proceeded, with the result that the barrier was broken by the truck. One of the constables had climbed on the left side of the window of the truck. Ultimately the truck over turned injuring Satyapal Singh, constable from the truck 135 "guilte" of Khair wood procured illegally was recovered from the truck A report in this connection was lodged and during the investigation of that crime it was found that the petitioner consable Narendra Kumar along with two other police constables was sitting in the Maruti Van and were responsible for smuggling out of the Khair wood. The order further says that Narendra Kumar was a resident of Muzaffarnagar, posted in the Armed Police Force of Nainital and after his appointment in the district Nainital had been indulging in the illegal cutting and theft of the Jungle wood from the Tarai area by getting involved along with the notorious smugglers of the Jungle wood, with the result that a dangerous Mafia Gang had become active in the area. From the activities of the petitioner the District Magistrate was satisfied that his detention was necessary with a view to prevent him from indulging and acting in a manner which should be prejudicial and hence the detention order was passed against him. 4. We have heard Sri D.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was delay in the disposal of the representation of the petitioner, However, we do not find any merit in this contention. The petitioner had made a representation on 15-4-93 and the counter affidavits have clearly demonstrated that the representation was continuously being disposed of at the district level and also at State Government's level and that ultimately the representation was rejected by the Government on 22-4-93. This contention is therefore of no avail to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that there has been non compliance of section 3 St of the National Security Act in as much as the order was not reported to the Central Government within the period stipulated therein. This contention is also not borne out from the record. The order dated 31-3-93 was approved by the State Government on 7-4-93 and the State Government made an intimation to the Central Government in respect of this on 8-4-93 itself which is much within the period stipulated for reporting the fact to the Central Government. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that at the first Advisory Board had not forwarded its opinion to the State Government within seven weeks. A perusal of the counter affidavit in this case indicates that the matter of the petitioner was considered by the Advisory Board who by its letter dated 14-5-93 had forwarded its report dated 29-4-93 to the Government. Seven weeks period from 31-3-93 expired only on 19-5-93. A perusal of the counter affidavit in this case indicates that the matter of the petitioner was considered by the Advisory Board who by its letter dated 14-5-93 had forwarded its report dated 29-4-93 to the Government. Seven weeks period from 31-3-93 expired only on 19-5-93. Hence once the Advisory Board had tendered its advice on 14-5-93 it cannot be said that the violation of section 11 of the National Security Act has been made. The last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the activities assigned to the petitioner should not be treated to be matters relating to the disturbance of public order. Learned counsel has contended that so far as the first activity of the petitioner of going to the factory of Harbansh Lal is concerned there was a report dated 11-1-91 from the Circle Officer (Annexure-11 to the Petition which says that the fact that the police persons had forcibly taken away Rs. 50.000/-was not found to be correct. His further contention is that in any case this was one act which took place inside some office and the public as such could not be affected by any such act, with the result it would be wrong to presume that public order could be disturbed due to activities of the petitioner. Coming to the report of the Circle Officer suffice it to say that whereas in the first paragraph the report is annexed with the petition does mention that the fact of Rs. 50,000/- being taken away by force was found to be not established; the second part of the report categorically mentioned that on the basis of the application and the statement of Harbansh a prima facie case against all the persons was found and hence an action under the prevention of corruption Act against all the persons was recommended. Consequently the possibility is that there is a typing error in the first part where it is said that the fact of snatching Rs. 50,000/- was not substantiated. Even if there was no typing error yet it could be said that even if the fact of taking away Rs. Consequently the possibility is that there is a typing error in the first part where it is said that the fact of snatching Rs. 50,000/- was not substantiated. Even if there was no typing error yet it could be said that even if the fact of taking away Rs. 50,000/- as such may not have been found to be established but in view of the subsequent report that the Circle Officer had recommended action against the police personnels under the Prevention of Corruption Act is clearly suggestive of the fact that going to the spot and the act of indulging in the activity as assigned to the petitioner has been found to be prima facie correct even by the Circle Officer. 7. However learned counsel's contention that this activity could not be an activity calculated to maintain the public order needs further consideration. 8. May be that the alleged activity had taken place inside the office of the factory. What really is necessary to assess is whether if similar activities are repeated in which owners of the factory are threatened to part with their cash or belongings on pistol point by a person who is himself a part of the police force then whether the confidence of the people of the community in the police administration would be shaken up or not and whether that would or would not disturb even tempo of life of the community. We have no hesitation to infer that once people come to know that some person of the police had joined a gang to rob a businessman in his office then the entire business community would feel totally insecure which in turn would affect even tempo of life of the community. Consequently in our view the first ground of detention of the petitioner is clearly calculated to affect the maintenance of public order. Although in view of section 5-A of the National Security Act if the order of detention can be sustained even on a single ground yet learned counsel for the petitioner urged as to examine whether ground No. 3 could be considered to be a ground which has any concern with the problem of maintenance of public order. 9. We have carefully gone through the third ground also. It clearly states that there was a Mafiya Gang operating in the district which was cutting the forest and smuggling out the wood. 9. We have carefully gone through the third ground also. It clearly states that there was a Mafiya Gang operating in the district which was cutting the forest and smuggling out the wood. The ground further said that people as also the police were so terrorised and awe stricken from the Gang that they avoided taking any action against (the petitioner who had also associated himself with the said Gang. Once we find this type of activity is assigned to the petitioner who is a police constable there is no scope to doubt that the petitioner being a police constable had misused his position and bad really become a potential threat to the maintenance of public order inasmuch as the people being afraid of him could not dare to protest even to police that the wood of the Jungle was being illegally cut and smuggled out coupled with the background that when stopped by one, of the police inspectors and chased by one constable the Gang did not stop and tried to flee away but also resorted to firing etc. as is mentioned in the grounds. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also wanted to comment on the second ground of his activity. According to him the petitioner was guilty of having assaulted his fellow constable Suresh Chandra Sharma. A perusal of the FIR in this connection which has been annexed as annexure-III to the petitioner reveals that when constable Suresh Chandra Sharma after taking food in a hotel in the Railway Bazar at about 9.00 P.M. was coming back and bad arrived near Nahid Talkies then the petitioner along with constables Anil Tyagi and Sompal Singh started abusing and beating him after inflicting sufficient injuries. The three constables ran away. Some other police personnels came and took him to the hospital. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this activity can hardly be calculated to affect the maintenance of the public order. Bereft of the other activities of the petitioner, this entry in the G.D. which has been shown as a non-cognizable offence may not have been sufficient to be considered as a ground for detaining the petitioner for affecting the maintenance of public order. Bereft of the other activities of the petitioner, this entry in the G.D. which has been shown as a non-cognizable offence may not have been sufficient to be considered as a ground for detaining the petitioner for affecting the maintenance of public order. But we cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner has misused his official position of the police constable and has been found to be otherwise also indulging in activity calculated to affect the maintenance of public order. Consequently, we are of the opinion, that collectively reading of all the three grounds together this activity was also relevant in so far as the maintenance of public order is concerned. However, as discussed above even if one of the three activities could be found to be relevant for the purpose of maintenance of public order, the detention order could not fail in view of the provision of section 5-A of the National Security Act. Thus we are not in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the grounds of detention furnished to the petition are not relevant so far as maintenance of the public order is concerned. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the detention order had been passed against some fellow persons of the petitioner also. His contention in the rejoinder affidavit is that the Government under section 14 had revoked the detention, order of two of his other associates. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that this ground resulted in discrimination and violative to Article-14 and (that the detention order of the petitioner also deserves to be revoked. We are afraid this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. It would have been a different matter if for similar activity the Government/Detaining authority would not have passed the detention order against the companions of the petitioner. But once the detention orders had been passed against all the persons then what prompted the Government to revoke the order may be a question of such pleas undertakings, assurance or other factors which may have prevailed with the Government in getting the detention order revoked. Consequently, mere fact that on a representation being made by some fellow detenu the detention order of some one has been revoked cannot be a ground to allege that the detention order of the petitioner has also necessarily to be revoked. Consequently, mere fact that on a representation being made by some fellow detenu the detention order of some one has been revoked cannot be a ground to allege that the detention order of the petitioner has also necessarily to be revoked. We are therefore, not impressed with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard either. 12. No other point has been pressed before us. There is no merit in this petition. This petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.