V. N. SINGH, J. These petitions have been filed for issuance of order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus quashing the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Kushinagar dated 16-9-2001 and setting the petitioners at liberty forthwith. 2. As contentions of all petitioners are same, hence petition No. 14112/2002 and 14113/2002 and 14934/2002 and 15655/2002 are consolidated for judgment. For convenience this petition No. 14112/2002, Rajesh v. State of U. P. and others, is made leading case. 3. Contention of the petitioners is that while the petitioners were in jail, the detention order dated 16-9- 2001 was passed by the District Magistrate, Kushinagar, which was served on the petitioners alongwith the grounds of detention in respect of the involvement of the petitioners in Case Crime No. 203/2001 under Sections 147 and 304 IPC, registered at Police Station Ramkola on 16-8-2001. During investigation under Section 304 IPC, it was converted later on under Section 302 IPC and Section 120-B IPC. 4. The petitioners were also supplied copy of the report of the Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar and report of the Station House Officer, Ramkola dated 4-9-2001 alongwith the copy of the First Information Report, dated 16-8-2001. 5. The petitioners submitted a representation before the Advisory Board, U. P. Government and Union of India on the ground that the detention order is based on law and order problem and not based on public order and on the ground that the District Magistrate has not applied his mind, while passing the detention order. 6. The representation to the Advisory Board was rejected and the detention order was confirmed by the State Government vide order dated 15-11-2001. 7. The Central Government also rejected the representation of the petitioners vide order dated 9-11- 2001. 8. It has been alleged that although six accused persons were involved in Case Crime No. 203 of 2001, under Sections 147, 302 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Ramkola, District Kushinagar namely : 1. Khoob Lal 2. Ram Nayan 3. Ram Dhyan 4. Rajesh 5. Deba 6. Smt. Heera Dei The detention order dated 16-9-2001 was passed only against four accused persons namely; Rajesh, Ram Nayan, Khoob Lal and Deba. 9. Khoob Lal 2. Ram Nayan 3. Ram Dhyan 4. Rajesh 5. Deba 6. Smt. Heera Dei The detention order dated 16-9-2001 was passed only against four accused persons namely; Rajesh, Ram Nayan, Khoob Lal and Deba. 9. The District Magistrate passed the detention order on six grounds only on the pressure of political persons, although no specific role of the petitioners were shown in the First Information Report and allegation is general in nature and the petitioners have no criminal history. 10. It has also been alleged that there is enormous delay in disposal of the representation by the State Government and the Union of India. 11. In the counter-affidavit filed by Sri S. N. Pandey, District Magistrate, Kushinagar, it was alleged that the petitioners committed heinous crime, which was not only against the individual, but was against the society at large. 12. It was also alleged that the petitioners submitted his representation to the jail authorities, which was received in his office on 4-10-2001 at 3. 15 p. m. which was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar for his comments. The comments of the Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar was received on 5-10-2001. His comments and representation was sent to the State Government on 6-10-2001 through special messenger. 13. The State Government rejected the representation of the petitioners and sent a message dated 12- 10-2001. The petitioners were informed regarding it, by the jail authorities. The Central Government also rejected the representation of the petitioners and also sent a message vide R. G. dated 22-10-2001 and the petitioners were informed regarding this also by the jail authorities. 14. There is no delay in deciding the representation of the petitioners by the State Government, as well as by the Central Government. It is incorrect to say that the detention order has been passed mechanically and he has passed the detention order in full determination of mind. 15. It has also been alleged that in view of the decision of this Honble Court in Chandresh Paswan case, parity may not be claimed in the detention matter. 16. Sri C. P. Singh, Deputy Secretary (Home) and Confidential Department, U. P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow in the affidavit has deposed that the petitioners representation dated 4-10-2001 alongwith parawise comments thereon, forwarded by the District Magistrate, Kushinagar was received in the concerned section of the State Government on 8-10-2001. 16. Sri C. P. Singh, Deputy Secretary (Home) and Confidential Department, U. P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow in the affidavit has deposed that the petitioners representation dated 4-10-2001 alongwith parawise comments thereon, forwarded by the District Magistrate, Kushinagar was received in the concerned section of the State Government on 8-10-2001. The State Government sent copies of the representation and the parawise comments to the U. P. Advisory Board vide its letter dated 8-10-2001 and to the Central Government by letter dated 8-10-2001. After due consideration the said representation was finally rejected by the State Government on 10-10-2001, which was communicated to the petitioners through the district authorities by the State Government Radiogram dated 12-10-2001. 17. It has been alleged that detention order, dated 16-9-2001, grounds of detention and all other connected papers, forwarded by the District Magistrate, Kushinagar vide his letter dated 16-9-2001 were received by the State Government on 17-9-2001. 18. After examining every aspect of the case, the State Government approved the order of detention on 20-9-2001 i. e. , within 12 days of the detention order. The approval of the detention order was communicated to the petitioners, through the district authorities by the State Government Radiogram and letter both dated 22-9-2001. On the same day, a copy of the detention order, grounds of detention and all other connected papers received from the District Magistrate, Kushinagar were also sent to the Central Government, which were received by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi on 23- 9-2001, within seven days from the date of approval by the State Government. 19. It has been alleged that the cases of the petitioners were referred to the Advisory Board by the State Government on 22-9- 2001 well within three weeks from the date of their actual detention, as required under Section 10 of the National Security Act. 8-10-2001 was fixed as the date of hearing before the Advisory Board. They were heard in person, by the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board held that there was sufficient cause for detention of the petitioners. The report of the Advisory Board alongwith the record were received in the concerned section of the State Government through Registrar, U. P. Advisory Board (Detention) letter dated 31-10-2001, well within seven weeks. 20. They were heard in person, by the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board held that there was sufficient cause for detention of the petitioners. The report of the Advisory Board alongwith the record were received in the concerned section of the State Government through Registrar, U. P. Advisory Board (Detention) letter dated 31-10-2001, well within seven weeks. 20. After receipt of report of the Advisory Board, the State Government again examined the entire case afresh and confirmed the detention order for keeping the petitioners under detention for 12 months. 21. Sri Kunwar Rananjai Singh, Deputy Jailor, filed an affidavit that the petitioners were admitted in District Jail, Deoria in Case Crime No. 203 of 2001 under Sections 147 and 302 IPC, Police Station Ramkola, district Kushinagar. The detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Kushinagar was received in Jail on 16-9-2001 itself. The detention order, grounds of detention and all other materials received with the detention order, were served upon the petitioners on the same day and he has explained the reasons of their detention under the National Security Act. 22. The State Government approved the detention order and sent the message vide R. G. dated 22-9- 2001, which was received in jail on 25-9-2001 and on the same day, the petitioners were informed by the Jail authorities. 23. Thereafter approval order was received in jail on 3-10-2001 and was served upon the petitioners on the same day. 24. The petitioners submitted their representation to the Jail authority on 4-10-2001 and on the same day, the representation of the petitioners was sent to the District Magistrate, Kushinagar for further action in the matter. 25. The information regarding the hearing before the Advisory Board was received in Jail on 4-10-2001 and the petitioners were informed about the same on 5-10-2001 that if they desire, they can appear before the Advisory Board alongwith their next friend (non-advocate ). On the date fixed i. e. , 8-10-2001 the petitioners were produced before the Advisory Board and were heard in person by the Advisory Board. 26. The State Government rejected the aforesaid representation of the petitioners and sent a message vide R. G. dated 12-10- 2001, which was received in jail on 13-10-2001 and on the same day the petitions were informed by the Jail authority. 27. 26. The State Government rejected the aforesaid representation of the petitioners and sent a message vide R. G. dated 12-10- 2001, which was received in jail on 13-10-2001 and on the same day the petitions were informed by the Jail authority. 27. The Central Government also rejected the representation of the petitioners and sent a message vide R. G. dated 22-10- 2001, which was received in Jail on 23-10-2001 and on the same day it was informed to the petitioners by the Jail authority. 28. The State Government on the basis of the report of the Advisory Board confirmed the detention order for a period of 12 months from the date of actual detention and sent a message vide R. G. dated 15-11-2001, which was received in jail on 13-10-2001, and on the same day, the petitioners were informed by the jail authority. The confirmation order was received in Jail on 23-11-2001 and was served upon the petitioners on the same day. 29. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned A. G. A. Points for determination in this case are as follows : (1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the parity. (2) Whether one solitary incident is sufficient for passing the detention order and whether solitary incident may give rise to the disturbance of the public order. (3) Whether the District Magistrate has applied his mind while passing the detention order. (4) Whether despite of the fact that the petitioners were in custody, there was compelling reason for detention of the petitioner. (5) Whether the incident in question is covered under the definition of law and order or it is covered under the definition of public order. 30. Regarding parity, it has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that although in Case Crime No. 203/2001, under Sections 147, 302 and 120-B IPC accused Khoob Lal, Ram Nayan, Ram Dhyan, Rajesh, Deba and Smt. Heera Dei w/o Sri Deba Chauhan are involved but the detention order was passed only against four persons; namely Rajesh, Deba, Khoob Lal and Ram Nayan. 31. It has also been argued that although same allegation was against the accused Ram Dhyan s/o Ganesh Khatik, the detention order was not passed against him. 32. It has also been argued that the detention order was not passed against Smt. Heera Dei. 33. 31. It has also been argued that although same allegation was against the accused Ram Dhyan s/o Ganesh Khatik, the detention order was not passed against him. 32. It has also been argued that the detention order was not passed against Smt. Heera Dei. 33. It has been argued by the learned A. G. A. that the petitioners are not entitled for parity in the case of detention. 34. In this connection attention of the Court has been drawn towards Full Bench decision in the case of Chandresh Paswan v. State of U. P. , 1999 (2) JIC 2 (All) (FB) 1999crlj page 2759 and towards the decision in S. C. Katara v. State of U. P. and others, referred in 2001 Crlj, page 4777. 35. We have gone through the decision in the case of S. C. Katara, in which it has been held that in the case of detention, parity cannot be canvassed, as ground of detention may be entirely different in different cases. 36. So far as the decision in Chandresh Paswan is concerned, the detention order was revoked under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the National Security Act, as there was no sufficient ground for detention. 37. It has also been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that allegation against petitioners and Ram Dhyan are the same. 38. It has also been argued that decision in the case of Chandresh Paswan is not applicable, because detention order was not passed against the accused Ram Dhyan and there was no question of revoking the detention order under sub-section (2) of the Section 12 of the National Security Act. 39. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the State Government or by the District Magistrate or by any other authority stating that the detention order was passed against Ram Dhyan involved in Case Crime No. 203 of 2001 under Sections 147, 302 and 120-B IPC. 40. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in view of the fact that the detention order was not passed against the accused Ram Dhyan, although the allegations were the same, it is clear that detention order passed against the petitioners is not justified and petitioners are entitled to parity with Ram Dhyan. 41. 40. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in view of the fact that the detention order was not passed against the accused Ram Dhyan, although the allegations were the same, it is clear that detention order passed against the petitioners is not justified and petitioners are entitled to parity with Ram Dhyan. 41. As such, we are of the view that as allegation in the First Information Report against Ram Dhyan and the petitioners were the same and detention order was not passed against Ram Dhyan, the detention order passed against the petitioners is not justified. 42. Regarding next point, it has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that solitary incident cannot be a ground for detention. 43. It has been argued by the learned A. G. A. that solitary ground may give rise to the disturbance of the public order. In this connection, attention of the Court has been drawn towards the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sant Singh v. District Magistrate, Varanansi and others, 2000 (1) JIC 438 (All) : 2000 (40) ACC 547. 44. In the case of Sant Singh, it was held by the Division Bench that, even one solitary incident may give rise to disturbance of the public order. 45. As such the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners has no force in view of the above mentioned decision. 46. Regarding point No. 3, it has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the District Magistrate has not applied his mind while passing the detention order. 47. In this connection, attention of the Court has been drawn towards page 19, which is copy of detention order and towards page No. 31, which is the copy of the letter sent by the Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar and page No. 38, which is copy of the letter of Sri Pragy Ratna Bhaskar, S. O. , Ramkola, district Kushinagar in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 15655 of 2002, according to which Rajesh put the pressure on the chest of the girl. 48. In this connection, attention of the Court has been drawn towards page No. 45, which is copy of the First Information Report, lodged by Ram Harakh, according to which, Ram Dhyan put the pressure on the chest of the girl. 49. 48. In this connection, attention of the Court has been drawn towards page No. 45, which is copy of the First Information Report, lodged by Ram Harakh, according to which, Ram Dhyan put the pressure on the chest of the girl. 49. Argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that, it shows that First Information Report is contradictory to the detention order, report of the letter of the Superintendent of Police and the letter of the S. O. , but these facts have not been considered by the District Magistrate, while passing the detention order against the petitioner Ram Nayan. 50. These facts show that the District Magistrate has not applied his mind while passing the detention order. 51. Attention of the Court has been drawn towards Page No. 20 of the Habeas Corpus Petition No. 14112 of 2002 of the petitioner Rajesh, which is the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Kushinagar and towards page No. 32, which is the copy of the letter, dated 8-9-2001 sent by the Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar addressed to the District Magistrate and towards Page No. 39 of the petition, which is copy of the letter of Sri Pragy Ratna Bhaskar, S. O. , P. S. Ramkola, according to which pressure was put by Rajesh on the chest of the girl Sanju. 52. Attention of the Court has been drawn towards the copy of the First Information Report at Page No. 46 alleged to be filed by Sri Ram Harakh of the Chik No. 146 of 2001 under Section 304 IPC converted under Sections 147, 120-B in which, it has been alleged that Ram Dhyan put the pressure on the chest of the girl Sanju, who died on 16-8-2001 at 4. 00 p. m. 53. As such it is clear that according to the First Information Report mentioned at Page No. 46 of the Habeas Corpus Petition No. 14112 of 2002, Ram Dhyan put the pressure on the chest of the girl Sanju, whereas according to the report of the S. O. , Ramkola and the report of the Superintendent of Police and detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Rajesh put the pressure on the chest of the girl Sanju. These two things are contradictory, which has not been considered by the District Magistrate, while passing the detention order. 54. These two things are contradictory, which has not been considered by the District Magistrate, while passing the detention order. 54. Attention of the Court has also been drawn towards the detention order passed against Khoob Lal. On Page No. 18 of the Habeas Corpus Petition No. 14934 of 2001, Khoob Lal v. State of U. P. , the District Magistrate passed the order that, he (Khoob Lal) put pressure on the chest of the girl Sanju, who died in sub-conscious state. 55. In this connection, attention of the Court has also been drawn towards Page No. 30, which is copy of the letter of the Superintendent of Police to the District Magistrate and the letter of Sri Pragy Ratna Bhaskar, S. O. , Ramkola addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar at Page No. 36 of the Petition No. 14934 of 2001 wherein it is mentioned that Rajesh put pressure on the chest of the girl Sanju. 56. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that in such circumstances it is clear that accordingly to the First Information Report Ram Dhyan put pressure on the chest of the girl Sanju, whereas according to the letter of the Superintendent of Police, and the S. O. Kushinagar, Rajesh put pressure on the chest of Sanju, while in the detention order of the District Magistrate, Kushinagar it has been mentioned that Khoob Lal put pressure on the chest of the girl Sanju. 57. Argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that it shows that, the District Magistrate did not apply his mind while passing the detention order. 58. Attention of the Court has also been drawn towards the detention order mentioned at Page No. 18, passed by the District Magistrate, in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 14113 of 2002, Deba v. Sate of U. P. , according to which, Deba put the pressure on the chest of the girl, while according to Page No. 30, which is copy of the letter of the Superintendent of Police and towards Page No. 37, which is copy of the letter of the S. O. , Ramkola addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Rajesh put the pressure on the chest of the girl Sanju. 59. 59. Attention of the Court has also been drawn towards Page No. 44, which is copy of the First Information Report, lodged by Ram Harakh, according to which, Ram Dhyan put the pressure on the chest of the girl Sanju. 60. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that, thus it is clear that according to the detention order Deba put pressure on the chest of Sanju, while the letters of the Superintendent of Police and S. O. , Ramkola reveal that pressure was put by Rajesh on the chest of the girls Sanju and according to the First Information Report Ram Dhyan put the pressure on the chest of Sanju. These things are contradictory to each other and it shows that these facts have not been considered by the District Magistrate, Kushinagar while passing the order. 61. It shows that the District Magistrate has not applied his mind. 62. In such circumstances, we are of the view that while passing the detention order against Ram Nayan, Khoob Lal, Rajesh and Deba, the District Magistrate, Kushinagar did not consider these facts and did not apply his mind. 63. Now next point is whether detention order can be passed against a person who is already in custody and whether there were compelling reasons for it. 64. In this connection, attention of the Court has been drawn towards the decision in Harish Kasana v. State of U. P. and others, referred in 1999 (1) JIC 115 (All) : 1998 (37) ACC 725 (HC), in which it has been held that detention order can be passed if there are compelling reasons to believed that in case the person in detention is released on bail, he will again indulge in activities prejudicial to public order. 65. Attention of the Court has also been drawn towards the decision in Surya Prakash Sharma v. State of U. P. , 1990 (27) ACC 67 (SC), in which the apex Court held that order of detention can be passed but detaining authority must be aware of this fact and that there are compelling reasons for such detention. 66. 65. Attention of the Court has also been drawn towards the decision in Surya Prakash Sharma v. State of U. P. , 1990 (27) ACC 67 (SC), in which the apex Court held that order of detention can be passed but detaining authority must be aware of this fact and that there are compelling reasons for such detention. 66. The expression compelling reason in the context of making an order for detention of a person already in custody imply that there must be cogent material before the authority on the basis of which the detaining authority must be satisfied that (a) detenue is likely to be released from the custody in near future (b) taking into account that after his release from custody he would indulge in any prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities. 67. In view of the above mentioned circumstances, it is to be seen, whether there is any cogent material or cogent ground for passing the detention order. 68. From perusal of the detention order, it is clear that, nowhere it has been alleged that, the petitioners were involved in any activities prior to this incident or they have any criminal history or they are previous convict. 69. The only ground is that, accused are involved in the present case and the constables Sri Madan Mohan Jaiswal and Sri Shivji Yadav of Chowki Khothi Police Station, have reported on 28-8-2001 that, the petitioners, through their supporters, are threatening to kill, regarding which rapat No. 5 at 9. 30 dated 28-5-2001 has been made. On enquiry by Sri Seva Ram Arun, S. I. , Police Station, Ramkola found that due to the murder of Sanju, the villagers are frightened and there is a complete silence in the village, regarding which entries have been made in rapat No. 15 time 9. 10 dated 19-8-2001 at Police Station Ramkola. 70. Argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that, there is no evidence that how constables Sri Madan Mohan Jaiswal and Sri Shivji Yadav found that villagers were threatened and when S. I. Seva Ram Arun has not taken any evidence and have not investigated the matter properly. 10 dated 19-8-2001 at Police Station Ramkola. 70. Argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that, there is no evidence that how constables Sri Madan Mohan Jaiswal and Sri Shivji Yadav found that villagers were threatened and when S. I. Seva Ram Arun has not taken any evidence and have not investigated the matter properly. In view of the fact, there is no previous criminal history neither any antecedent, nor there is any evidence to show that the petitioners have indulged in any prejudicial activities and no evidence has been collected by S. I. Sri Seva Ram Arun and constables Sri Madan Mohan Jaiswal and Sri Shivji Yadav, we are of the view that there were no compelling reasons for the detention of the petitioners. 71. Next point is whether the incident is covered under the definition of public order or law and order. A clear-cut distinction between law and order or public order is not in the nature and quality of the Act in the degree and extent of its reach upon the society. 72. Attention of the Court was drawn towards decision in the case of Sant Singh v. District Magistrate, Varanasi and others, referred in 2000 (40) ACC 547 and in the case of Harish Kasana v. State of U. P. and others, 1998 (37) ACC 725. It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Harish Kasana that any incident, involving criminal activity is likely to cause some restriction on normal activity of people and thereby causing some disturbance in order of the society. 73. On that basis it is not sufficient to say that there has been disturbance of public order. 74. It has also been held that the test, which has to be applied in such cases is whether the activity of the detenue is such, which indicates that, he must have been acting earlier also as a member of some gang indulged in unlawful activities such as dacoity, robbery, kidnapping etc. , or not. 75. Argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that, there is no material that petitioners were involved in such activities earlier also. 76. Besides it, from the perusal of the First Information Report it is clear that the incident has taken place on 15-8-2001 between 6. 00 p. m. to 11. , or not. 75. Argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that, there is no material that petitioners were involved in such activities earlier also. 76. Besides it, from the perusal of the First Information Report it is clear that the incident has taken place on 15-8-2001 between 6. 00 p. m. to 11. 00 p. m. , while Sanju died on 16-8-2001 at about 4. 00 a. m. 77. In such circumstances, it is clear that it is a case of a simple murder, which is covered under the definition of law and order and not under the definition of public order. 78. Considering the total circumstances, the petitions are liable to be allowed. 79. As such detention order dated 16-9-2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Kushinagar against the petitioners Rajesh, Deba, Khoob Lal and Ram Nayan are quashed. The District Magistrate, Kushinagar is directed to set the petitioners Rajesh, Deba, Khoob Lal and Ram Nayan at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 80. Copy of the judgment be kept on file of Petition Nos. 14113/2002, 14934/2002 and 15655/2002. Office is directed in communicate this order to respondents forthwith. Petitions allowed. .