By virtue of this petition, the petitioner has prayed as fol lows : (1) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to produce the petitioner before this Court and to set him at liberty and also to quash the detention order dated 1-5-97 passed against him; (2) To issue any other writ, order or di rection which this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; (3) To award costs of this petition to the petitioner. 2. The detention order alongwith the grounds is dated 1-5-97 under the provi sions of National Security Act (N. S. A. ). The main allegations are that on 1-3-97 at 4 p. m. in the Panchayat Bhawan premises at Rampur the accused alongwith his com panions in an open place i. e. in the said office, had with an intention to murder Sri R. C. Singh, Chief Development Officer, Rampur fired at him. Therefter the peti tioner tried to escape. But he was an over powered yet escaped, an atmosphere of terror was created and the villagers who had assembled for getting some reliefs in the office of the Chief Development Offi cer, ran away from the spot. Thus, the public order was totally disturbed. The people of the locality were extremely afraid. The companion of the petitioner escaped. A report to that effect was lodged on 1-3-97 at 4. 30 p. m. and a case under Sections 307/506, IPC was registered against the petitioner. In the local newspa per like Dainik Jagran, the news was pub lished and this act of audicity committed by the petitioner was widely spread and published. Nay, the D. R. D. Employees Association, Rampur gave a memorandum to the District Magistrate, Rampur and the S. S. P. Rampur to the effect that the em ployees of the office are feeling totally insecured after this incident and the act of the petitioner was condemned in forceful talks. They sought the early incarceration of the petitioner and his companion. 3. The petitioner was taken into cus tody on 2-3-97 and eversince he is lodged in a Jail and is continuously trying for getting bail, although the C. J. M. as well as the Sessions Judge rejected his bail appli cation on 9-4-97. The application for bail was moved before the High Court Alld. 3. The petitioner was taken into cus tody on 2-3-97 and eversince he is lodged in a Jail and is continuously trying for getting bail, although the C. J. M. as well as the Sessions Judge rejected his bail appli cation on 9-4-97. The application for bail was moved before the High Court Alld. , which is pending consideration. It is likely that he might be bailed out by the High Court and after coming out from Jail, he shall repeact the same type of activities by creating terror in the mind of the local people specially the employees attached to the office. This way the public order shall be totally disturbed and the District Magis trate was personally satisfied that a situa tion has arisen which warrants the contin ued imprisonment of the accused. Hence the detention order (Annexure 1 to the petition), was passed under the provisions of N. S. A. 4. The petitioner, in this petition has alleged that in fact, the petitioner is a vic tim of Sri R. C. Singh, the Chief Devel opment Officer, Rampur who had been treating the petitioner with extreme cruelty and he was threatening him (petitioner) off and on and in fact, on 1-3-97, the peti tioner became the victim of his firing and lodged a report but no action has been taken agaisnt R. C. Singh. Therefore, a petition under Section 156 (3), Cr PC was filed by the petitioner as he had received grievous injuries and he was at the verge of death. Sri R. C. Singh has specially named him as an accused under Section 307. IPC. whereas Sri Singh had received no injury at all. Cause of anger of R. C. Singh towards the petitioner was thai he was highlighting the various misconducts and charges of corruption against Sri R. C. Singh. A series of complaints had been sent by the petitioner in the years 1994 and 1995. Allegedly on an enquiry held by the Distt. Magistrate, Rampur, some charges have been made out against Sri R. C. Singh. Thus Sri R. C. Singh was very an gry against the petitioner and lodged a false FIR resulting into illegal detention of the petitioner. The petitioner is a good sports man and has been rewarded by the higher authority and the detention of the petitioner is totally unlawful. 5. Thus Sri R. C. Singh was very an gry against the petitioner and lodged a false FIR resulting into illegal detention of the petitioner. The petitioner is a good sports man and has been rewarded by the higher authority and the detention of the petitioner is totally unlawful. 5. The main grounds of attack levelled by the petitioner are that the report, which has constituted the basis of the order of detention is itself wrong. It is not a case of public order. At the most, it can be said to be a case of law and order. The petitioner is an Ex-serviceman and also a physical Instructor w. e. f. 1- 9-97. The petitioner was not provided personal hearing by the State Government which has violated the prin ciples of natural justice. 6. The opposite party, namely, the Distt. Magistrate Km. Leena Nandan has mentioned in her counter- affidavit that she had passed the detention order after perus ing the entire evidence and material made available to her by the police authorities of the district and she was fully satisfied that a case has been made out against the peti tioner for detention. The case launched by the petitioner against Sri R. C. Singh has resulted in filing of a final report dated 15-4-97 and the cross-version of the petitioner has been found false. It is wrong to say that the opposite party did not apply her mind. No case of prejudice has been made out as alleged by the petitioner. The repre sentation of the petitioner was sent by the Jail authorities, which was received by her on 18-5-97 and she sent the same to the State Authority alongwith her comments and documents on 20-5-97. The comments were sent before the Advisory Board on 19-5-97 alongwith the copy of the repre sentation and the same were sent directly to the Central Government on 23-5-97. The detention of the petitioner has been approved by the State Government on 9-5-97. This fact has been communicated to the petitioner. The order was finally made absolute by the State Government on 23-6-97 for detaining the petitioner for a period of one year. The petitioner was permitted to appear before the Advisory Board on 4-6-97 and make submissions. But the Advisory Board did not agree with the contentions raised by the petitioner. 7. The State Government through Sri Gopal Dutt. Upper Division Asstt. The petitioner was permitted to appear before the Advisory Board on 4-6-97 and make submissions. But the Advisory Board did not agree with the contentions raised by the petitioner. 7. The State Government through Sri Gopal Dutt. Upper Division Asstt. in Con fidential Section-7, U. P. Civil Secretariat. Lucknow has alleged that without delay the petitioners representation was consid ered and final orders were passed. A communication was similarly sent to the Government of India, which was received on 24-5-97. The Central Government did not disagree with the State Government as there was no delay on its part to consider the representation of the petitioner at any stage. 8. The only point raised before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this is not a case of public order, rather, it is a case of law and order. We do not agree. 9. Without going into the reality of facts as alleged by the petitioner and with out going into the correctness of the same on merit which we do not touch, it is clear that these facts are not disputed that a FIR was lodged by Sri R. C. Singh, a senior officer at the district level that while he was discharging his public responsibility at a public place in his office, the peti tioner alongwith his companion fired upon him from a very close range. It was a mur derous assault on his part. The public at large were terrorised and ran away from the office. The normal public function of the office as well as markets was com pletely disturbed and an atmosphere of terror had spread amongst all. 10. The petitioner, on the other hand, says that he was himself a victim of attack at the hands of Sri R. C. Singh and he also lodged a report with the police and persucd the matter under Section 156 (3), Cr PC. It means that the incident took place in the office of Sri R. C. Singh on the same date i. e. 1-3-97. The accused alleg edly fired at his officer Sri R. C. Singh at a public place. It means that the incident took place in the office of Sri R. C. Singh on the same date i. e. 1-3-97. The accused alleg edly fired at his officer Sri R. C. Singh at a public place. This act of the petitioner per se shows how hard hearted and hardened criminal minded the petitioner was that he chose a public place in a broad-day-light and in the office of Sri R. C. Singh, his senior officer and he fired from his pistol from a very close range, upon him. He did his best to kill Sri R. C. Singh. But as the God is greater than human being, the pro gramme of the accused failed. 11. As we are not sitting as a trial Court over this matter and the legal liabil ity of the petitioner shall be determined by the competent civil/criminal courts, we have to see only if after believing the FIR lodged by Sri. R. C. Singh, to be correct, a situation arose as consequence of the act of the petitioner, in which such an offence was committed by the accused and his companion in a broad-day-light in pres ence of hundreds of people assembled in the office for their own purposes and for getting redressal of their grievances. 12. Sri K. K. Arora, learned Senior counsel with his usual thoroughness ar gued the case with unparalled advocacy and matchless forensic depth and stated that if we believe the contention raised in the FIR lodged by the Sri R. C. Singh, a case of public order is made out. However, he said that on fact, no such incident took place. In fact, the petitioner himself was a victim of attack at the hands of Sri R. C. Singh. 13. As observed earlier, as we are not sitting as a trial Court, we cannot pass any opinion regarding the correctness or oth erwise of the contention raised by Sri Arora. We have to proceed with the as sumption that the allegations are correct side by side we will also note summarily that the petitioner also filed the FIR which, after normal investigation, resulted into submission of a final report, which has been accepted by the Court. Not only this, the petitioner has also filed a petition under Section 156 (3), Cr PC. Not only this, the petitioner has also filed a petition under Section 156 (3), Cr PC. We are also not going to pass any order regarding the correctness or otherwise as stated above, but one thing is clear that the incident of such type took place at a public place in a broad-day-light. Its impact type general public is bound to the tremendous. 14. The petitioner is posted as a sub ordinate employee in the office of Sri R. C. Singh, then Chief Development Officer. The very fact that he mustered courage to attack Sri Singh at such a protected place like his public office per se indicates that it is a case of public order, which was naturally disturbed. The persons, who had assembled in the office for redressal of their grievances were terrorised by the act committed by the petitioner and they ran away from the spot, meaning thereby that they realised that the petitioner could do anything he liked, including he could make a murderous assault upon Sri Singh, his senior officer. He had fired upon him. He had faear of none and had become a dare devil. The consequence is that a sense of fear did breed int he mind of the public. They would have been certainly thinking that if the man (petitioner) could do such a bold act in broad-day-light and against his own superior officer Sri R. C. Singh they might also to suffer similar onslaught. So he was naturally capable of causing any harm to any other person, who was palced lower in the strata of public. This is something which is very bad ipso function and must be condemned. So we are satis fied after persual of the documents and materials, that the Distt. Magistrate passed the impugned order, which does not suffer from the vice of favourism, bias or influ ence of Sri R. C. Singh. Nay, a person sitting in the Chair of the Distt. Magistrate shall certainly take a serious note of it that such an offence has been committed and the FIR was lodged against a persons, who happens to be an employee of the State Government and working under the same officer. This is something very abnoxious and cannot be thought of. Nay such action can not be treated with a sense of modera tion. Rather it deserves to be condemned extremely. This is something very abnoxious and cannot be thought of. Nay such action can not be treated with a sense of modera tion. Rather it deserves to be condemned extremely. Hence after applying her mind and perusal of entire evidence and cir cumstances on the record, which was placed before her, the Distt. Magistrate passed the impugned order of detention. We make it clear that it is certainly a case of public order and not a mere case of law and order. The impact of such a crime is bound to be very grave and the Distt. Magistrate has drawn a proper conclusion from there. 15. No other point has been raised before us. 16. The petition has no force. It is ac cordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed .