PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) IN this application for habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, Tilatama Parida, mother of Bhika alias Sarat Kumar Parida (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') has questioned legality of order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Cuttack on 14-9-1996 in purported exercise of powers under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short, 'the Act' ). Pursuant to the said mittimus, the detenu is interned in Circle Jail, Choudwar. ( 2 ) GROUNDS on which the detention has been directed, as indicated in the grounds of detention are that the detenu was creating havoc in different places of Cuttack city by indulging in anti-social activities whereby the public peace and order were adversely affected. His appearance in the localities make the people panic-stricken. People were apprehensive about their safety and security due to such anti-social activities. Though he was arrested and forwarded to custody in several cases, yet there was no diminution of anti-social activities, and even after coming out on bail, offences were committed more vigorously. Large number of criminal cases are pending against the detenu. Immediately prior to the order of detention on 4-9-1996 at about 4 p. m. detenu and his associate being armed with deadly weapons abused one Kailash Sharma of Choudhury bazar in loud obscene language and attacked him in presence of general public. The detenu tried to assault on the head of said Sharma lethally. As he ran away, a Bhujali was thrown by detenu with great force to take away his life. He threatened and terrorised the people with dire consequences if anybody dared to depose before the police or in Court. The acts of terrorism were so severe that innocent members of the public and the local shop-keepers out of fear ran helter-skelter and closed down shutters of their shop rooms. When one Krushna Chandra Behera, Secretary of the Bazar Committee wanted to ascertain the reason for such attack, the detenu attacked him and tried to kill him. With a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, detention was felt necessary. It was likely that in case the detenu is released on bail he shall continue his criminal and anti-social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and tranquillity. With a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, detention was felt necessary. It was likely that in case the detenu is released on bail he shall continue his criminal and anti-social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and tranquillity. ( 3 ) SEVERAL grounds have been urged in support of the application by Mr. R. N. Mohanty. Firstly, it is submitted that there is no material to show that the detenu was likely to commit any criminal offences after being released on bail. The conclusions in this regard were presumptuous, as there was no foundation for such belief. Secondly, it is urged that the representation made to the Central Government has not received any response and there has been delay in disposal of the representation thereby violating the constitutional protection provided. It is also submitted that the incidents described at the most are law and order situations and cannot be called to be public order situation. Mr. R. K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate submitted that the effect of the acts already committed would determine the question whether the situation is law and order or public order. The case at hand clearly shows that the effect was disastrous, and public tranquillity was affected. So far as delay in disposal of the representation to the Central Government is concerned, it is submitted that the representation was sent expeditiously by the State Government to the Central Government. The learned Sr. Standing Counsel (Central) submitted that though he was granted time to file counter-affidavit, he has not been able to do so on account of lack of response from concerned authorities. It is submitted that he has already written three letters, and in spite of that no records were sent to him for production or filing counter-affidavit. ( 4 ) WE shall first deal with the question whether the situation as described is law and order or public order. While the expression 'law and order' is wider in scope inasmuch as contravention of law always affects order, 'public order' has a narrower ambit, and public order would be affected by only such contravention which affects the community or the public at large. Public order is the even tempo of life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. Public order is the even tempo of life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. The distinction between the areas of 'law and order' and 'public order' is one of degree and extent of the reach of the act in question on society. It is the potentiality of the act in question on society. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. If a contravention in its effect is confined only to a few individuals directly involved as distinct from a wide spectrum of public, it could raise the problem of law and order only. It is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular eruption of disorder that helps to distinguish it as an act affecting 'public order' from that concerning 'law and order'. The question to ask is : Does it lead to disturbance of the current life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquillity of the society undisturbed? This question has to be faced in every case on its facts. Considering in that background, there can be no manner of doubt that the incidents related to a public order situation. The first plea therefore fails. ( 5 ) SO far as the second question relating to procedure to be adopted in case the detenu is already in custody is concerned, the guidelines have been indicated by one of us (Pasayat, J.) in Saras Kumar Mohanty v. State of Orissa, (1995) 2 Orissa LR 162 : (1996 Cri LJ 1017 ). In matter where the detention orders are passed in relation to persons who are already in jail under some other laws, the detaining authorities should apply their mind and show their awareness in this regard in the ground of detention, the chances of release of such persons on bail and stating the necessity of keeping such persons in detention under the preventive detention laws. Subsisting custody of the detenu by itself does not invalidate an order of his preventive detention, one the decision must depend on the facts of the particular case. Subsisting custody of the detenu by itself does not invalidate an order of his preventive detention, one the decision must depend on the facts of the particular case. Preventive detention being necessary to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or to the maintenance of public order, etc. Ordinarily, it is not needed when detenu is already in custody. The detaining authority must show its awareness to the fact of subsisting custody of the detenu and take that factor into account while making the order. If the detaining authority is reasonably satisfied on cogent materials that there is likelihood of his release and in view, his antecedent activities which are proximate in point of time he must be detained in order to prevent him from indulging such prejudicial activities the detention order can be validly made. Where the detention order in respect of a person already in custody does not indicate that the detenu was likely to be released on bail, the order would be vitiated. (See N. Meera Rani v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1989 SC 2027 : (1989 Cri LJ 2190); Dharmendra Suganchand v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1196 : (1990 Cri LJ 1232) ). The point was gone into detail in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1640 : (1991 Cri LJ 2058 ). The principles were set out as follows. Even in the case of a person in custody, a detention order can be validly passed (1) if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; (2) if he has reason to believe on the basis of reliable material placed before him- (a) that there is a real possibility of his release on bail, and (b) that on being released, he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activities, and (3) if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so doing. If an order is passed after recording satisfaction in that regard, the order would be valid. In the case at hand the order of detention and grounds of detention show awareness of custody and/or possibility of release on bail, and/or apprehension aspect. This is manifest from following indications in that regard in the grounds of detention. If an order is passed after recording satisfaction in that regard, the order would be valid. In the case at hand the order of detention and grounds of detention show awareness of custody and/or possibility of release on bail, and/or apprehension aspect. This is manifest from following indications in that regard in the grounds of detention. "in spite of being arrested and forwarded in custody in several cases, your anti-social activities are going unabetted. You are coming out on bail and committing further offences by creating havoc in the area more vigorously. You were arrested and forwarded to jail custody in Purighat P. S. Case No. 266 dated 4-9-96. A situation has now come when the normal laws of the land are not felt adequate to curb your dare-devil, high-handed anti-social activities. It is likely that you might be released on bail and indulge in further violent and anti-social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and tranquillity. "the records reveal that the detenu having been on earlier occasions released on bail continued his criminal activities. Therefore, the conclusion of the detaining authority cannot be said to be based on presumptions and without any foundation. The plea in that regard taken by the petitioner fails. ( 6 ) THE last and crucial question is whether on account of non-disposal of the representation by the Central Government, the constitutional sinews in terms of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution have been violated. A constitutional protection is given to every detenu which mandates the grant of liberty to the detenu to make a representation against the detention, as imperated in Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. It also imperates the authority to whom the representation is addressed to deal with the same with utmost expedition. The representation is to be considered in its right perspective keeping in view the fact that the detention of the detenu is based on subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned, and infringement of the constitutional right conferred under Article 22 (5) invalidates the detention order. Personal liberty protected under Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of constitutional values that it is the obligation of the detaining athority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. Personal liberty protected under Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of constitutional values that it is the obligation of the detaining athority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. The stringency and concern of the judicial vigilance that is needed was aptly described in the following words in Thomas Paeham Dales' case, (1981) 6 CBD 376 :"then comes the question upon the habeas corpus. It is a general rule, which has always been acted upon by the Courts of England, that if any person procures the imprisonment of another he must take care to do so by steps, all of which are entirely regular, and that if he fails to follow every step in the process with extreme regularity the Court will not allow the imprisonment to continue. " Whenever there is executive invasion on personal liberty, the Court has to weigh in golden scales whether the personal liberty is to be placed at a high pedestal regardless of the social cost involved in the release of a possible renegade. Observations to similar effect were made by the Supreme Court in Ichhudevi v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1983 . ( 7 ) NON-DISPOSAL of the detenu's representation by the Central Government violated the protection afforded to the detenu to make a representation, though a duty is attached for its early disposal. It is unfortunate that in a case of this nature the Central Government has chosen to be a passive onlooker and has not produced the records and even not filed counter-affidavit, notwithstanding grant of time for more than two months. If the submission of learned Sr. Standing Counsel (Central) is accepted, it reveals a shocking state of affairs because three letters sent by him for the records remained unattended. Be that as it may, any supine indifference by an authority which is mandated to deal with the representation of the detenu expeditiously results in rendering the detention invalid. Accordingly we quash the order of detention vide Annexure-1. The detenu be set at liberty forth with if his detention is not required in connection with any other case or proceeding. ( 8 ) THE writ application is allowed. No costs. ( 9 ) S. N. PHUKAN, C. J. :- I agree. Petition allowed. .