ORDER Vikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. Under challenge in this writ application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is Annexure-1 containing the order of the District Magistrate. Giridih, dated 5.7.2001 whereby and whereunder being satisfied on the report of the S.P. and the annexure contained with the said report, in the interest of public order passed under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Crime Control Order directing that the petitioner will be detained in Giridih jail for three months. 2. Grounds on which the said detention order have been challenged are (i) it was wholly unjust, improper, unlawful and without authority, (ii) in violation of the principle of natural justice, (iii) violation of the Articles 20 & 21 of the Constitution, (iv) in the absence of imminent possibility of any disturbance of the public tranquility and in the absence of serious danger at the instance of the petitioner the impugned order could not have been passed, (v) the impugned order is vitiated because it was passed without giving any opportunity of filing representation against the proposed detention and accordingly unlawful (vi) non-application of judicial mind while passing the impugned order and (vii) the grounds shown for his detention are wholly extraneous and baseless. In the writ application, prayer has also been made for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order and pending disposal the operation of the impugned order be stayed, which was passed in CCA Case No. 10 of 2001. 3. In short, the petitioner has pleaded that all cases i.e. Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 16/ 2000 under Section 144/379. IPC, Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 146/1999 under Section 341/323/379/365/34. IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 160/1999 under Section 144/379. IPC, which have been cited as the ground for passing the impugned order, were not sufficient ground for the order that has been passed because in Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 146/1999 the petitioner was granted bail and the learned Sessions Judge had observed that no offence under Section 364, IPC was made out and in Dhanwar P.S. Case No 16/2000, the informant was his own maternal uncle and that case was compromised and the other case being Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 160/1999 was filed by his own maternal brother and that case also ended in compromise. On these basis the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that these cases were filed by the relations and ended into compromise then merely one case i.e. Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 146/1999 remains, in which he has been granted bail and there could have been no occasion and scope for conclusion that the crimes aforesaid attributed to this petitioner were actually the crimes which could bring the accused-petition under the definition of anti-social element under the Act and his activities has patent danger in the public order. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that there is no application of mind by the detaining authority. Rather the petitioner came with a case that the petitioner is an active worker of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and therefore, on the prayer of Janardhan Vishwakarma, who belongs to another political party, at his instance and because of his political influence upon a Minister of the State of Jharkhand. The impugned order has been passed. 4. In the course of argument, the impugned order was challenged merely on the ground of (i) non-application of mind in passing the impugned order by the detaining authority and (ii) there not being any nexus between the activities of the petitioner and the public order. 5. Besides the State of Jharkhand, the Dy. Commissioner. Giridih, S.P., Giridih and the Officer-in-charge. Dhanwar P.S. were made the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively. 6. Counter-affidavits have been filed by the respondent No. 2, District Magistrate. Giridih and the S.P. Giridih, respondent No. 3. Besides general averment that the writ application was not maintainable and the petitioners claim was improper and unreasonable, it was averred that the impugned order was passed by the respondent No. 2 after examining the existing facts and material available to him and on proper application of mind and by recording his subjective satisfaction and in course of that past activities of the petitioner besides the likelihood of the petitioner indulging in criminal activities endangering the public order was also considered by him. It was also further averred that it was necessary to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and the anti-social activities of the petitioner could not be prevented without detention of the petitioner. It was also further averred that it was necessary to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and the anti-social activities of the petitioner could not be prevented without detention of the petitioner. Further averment was that the impugned order of detention, annexure-2 was subsequently approved by the State Government, vide annexure-A. The petitioner habitually committed criminal offences and his activities were affecting the peace, tranquility and normal temp. of life in the society. He committed nefarious criminal offences time and again and hence his dangerous activities had created panic and posed threat to the maintenance of public order. Thus the petitioner had become villain of peace and none can normally dare to depose against him. The grounds of detention were served upon him. In the ground of detention, the other cases in which charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner was also mentioned and on consideration of this the detaining authority was satisfied on proper application of mind passed the impugned order validly. It is further stated that the petitioner is an absconder and therefore, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih. in Case No. 216/2001, on a petition of the prosecution, has issued processes under Section 82 and 83. Cr PC against the petitioner because this petitioner was not being apprehended and the action was required to be taken under Section 16(1)(a) and 16(2) of the Bihar Control of Crime Order. 7. In his counter-affidavit, the S.I. Giridih gave a number of cases bearing Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 71/1989 under Sections 147, 148, 323 & 379, IPC. Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 37/1990 under Sections 448, 354. 379 and 506. IPC. Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 65/1992 under Section 395, IPC. Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 264/1997 under Sections 144. 341, 342. 353. 337, 379, 414 and 506. IPC. Section 27 of the Arms Act and under Sections 33. 41. 42 and 76 of the Forest Act filed by the Forest Authority. In Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 65/1992, the petitioner was a suspect, The list of three pending case being Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 146/1999. Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 160/1990 and Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 16/2000 have been given. Section 27 of the Arms Act and under Sections 33. 41. 42 and 76 of the Forest Act filed by the Forest Authority. In Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 65/1992, the petitioner was a suspect, The list of three pending case being Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 146/1999. Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 160/1990 and Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 16/2000 have been given. It has also been stated that because of fear and panic created by the petitioner no body appears to depose against the petitioner in the Court and thus he has become a veteran criminal and is disturbing the peace and tranquility. It was further stated that compromise of the case and grant of bail do not minimize his criminal activities. He has become terror and potent danger in the public order, in general in the area and the impugned order has been passed correctly and validly against the petitioner. 8. As the detaining authority, the District Magistrate had derived his satisfaction from the reports submitted by the S.P., it is worthwhile to look to the counter-affidavit filed by the S.P. because the materials were provided by him. The S.P. in his counter-affidavit has given the statements with Regard to a few cases namely Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 146/1999 under Sections 341, 323, 379, 365/34, IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. (ii) Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 160/1990 under Sections 341, 323. 364/34. IPC and (iii) Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 16/2000 under Sections 144, 379. IPC. Besides that he has referred to four cases of the year 1989, 1990, 1992 and 1997 respectively filed under Sections 147. 148. 323, 379. IPC. then the next under Sections 448, 354, 379. 506, IPC. then next under Section 395, IPC, in which the petitioner was a suspect and in the 4th case, under Section 144. 341, 342. 353, 337, 379, 414, 506. IPC. 27 of the Arms Act and under Section 33. 41. 42. 76 of the Forest Act. From perusal of the report, it appears that the criminal history of this petitioner begins from the year 1989 and during this period of 13 years, there are altogether 6-9 cases against him. The most serious case which was lodged against hint is under Section 395 was Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 65/1992, in which he was a suspect. From perusal of the report, it appears that the criminal history of this petitioner begins from the year 1989 and during this period of 13 years, there are altogether 6-9 cases against him. The most serious case which was lodged against hint is under Section 395 was Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 65/1992, in which he was a suspect. The S.P. does not state in his counter-affidavit as to what happened in that case, rather from perusal of the counter-affidavit it transpires that only three cases referred to above are pending. This means that the case has been disposed of and this petitioner has not been found guilty and therefore not convicted. This matter has been left uncleared rather the circumstances go to show that these cases are not pending against him at present as per the affidavit of the S.P. The other cases which were earlier filed other than the pending cases under Section 379, IPC and there were certain cases relating to the Forest Act, out of the three cases only in Dhanwar P.S. case No. 146/99. Section 27 of the Arms Act has been included and in another case. Section 364. IPC, Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 160/99 and in the third case, Section 379. IPC are there. The S.P. has stated that it is also a fact as appearing from the petition of the detenue in this case that in two case i.e. Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 160/99 and Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 16/2000, the cases were lodged by his own relations and subsequently these case ended into compromise and these two cases are of so private nature, it could hardly be said to affect the general public order. So far the Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 160/1999 is concerned the case of the petitioner is that it was lodged by one Janaradhan Vishwakarma, who is his political rival and on this point, there is no clear cut reply in the counter- affidavit of the S.P., when the allegation of the detenue is that at the instance of this Janaradhan Vishwakarma this detention order has been passed, there should have been proper reply. The S.P. in his report says that because of his terror, no body dares to give evidence in the Court (in para 5) but this statement of the S.P. is not supported by any cogent evidence and nothing has been brought on record to show that in the cases, at present pending or has been disposed of, the witnesses have become hostile on the ground of being terrorised by the petitioner. Terror purported by a person can be stated, but it must be substantiated by some type of proof. A number of cases have been filed against him. It is the case that the people who were aggrieved by his act went to the police station to file cases against him and if he actually had been a terror, it might have been difficult for any person to approach the police against him but there is no situation like that. No where in the counter-affidavit of the S.P., it is said that the people are so terrorised that they fear to come out against him and many cases have not been lodged against him, though offences have been committed by him. So considering all these circumstances, it does not appear that terror has been created and the people has been made panicky by his acts. 9. Now coming to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the detaining authority the District Magistrate, claiming that the District Magistrate has passed the impugned order on his subjective satisfaction and application of mind on the materials supplied to him by the S.P. The materials supplied to him by the S.P. have been discussed above. 10. The question is whether there has been application of mind by the detaining authority or not. The application of mind is sine qua non of all the decisions taken by any person in any capacity. The application of mind does not ensure that it will result only in right decisions. Even after application of mind someone can arrive at a wrong decision, but the essence of application of mind is that whether in a given circumstances of fact, a man of common predence would have arrived at the conclusion which has been arrived at by the person who allegedly applying his mind. Even after application of mind someone can arrive at a wrong decision, but the essence of application of mind is that whether in a given circumstances of fact, a man of common predence would have arrived at the conclusion which has been arrived at by the person who allegedly applying his mind. The number of cases pending against the petitioner and the number of cases which had been earlier filed but have been disposed of influenced the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Subjective satisfaction cannot be measured by any legal method. Subjective satisfaction is pure and simple satisfaction of the person and it may vary from man to man and therefore, it cannot be said that a person had to subjective satisfaction when he passed the order. But even in such a situation, it cannot be asked whether the subjective satisfaction was objectively derived from the facts of the case. All the cases that have been registered against the petitioner do not create a situation to show that his activities were actually directed against the public in general or a sizable class of public. One cannot imagine a society without crime. Crime graph of this petitioner definitely shows rising trend but nevertheless it does not show that because of the crime that has been committed are of such dimension which affect the people in general. Nowhere in the counter-affidavit it has been said that even from behind the Bar, certain crimes were being committed by his associates which had created a panic and terror. It has also not been a material that coming out of the jail, after being released on bail, there has been some spot of the crime of the nature he commits. Had it been so it could have been said that after coming out of the jail, he has started indulging into such crime. So there is no such evidence on record that he or his whatever crimes being committed were committed by the accused- petitioner or his own associates. Now the question, therefore, arises whether the impugned order of detention was passed only on the ground that the petitioner had come out of the Jail after getting bail and it appears to be proved from the fact that on the average of his being enlarged on bail this order was passed. Now the question, therefore, arises whether the impugned order of detention was passed only on the ground that the petitioner had come out of the Jail after getting bail and it appears to be proved from the fact that on the average of his being enlarged on bail this order was passed. If he was really a terror, then such an order could have been passed earlier also, when it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that when the administration came to know that he has been enlarged on bail, in order to defeat the ends of justice and to frustrate the bail, this detention order was passed. Therefore, there appears to be some weight in the aforesaid argument. 11. In cases of disturbance of public order the person disturbing the public order should be epicentre of the tremors and the tremor should reach even the unconcerned persons in the society or classes of people constituting the public order. If this tremor is not there and the unconcerned persons are not panicky, then in that circumstances, the tremor cannot be brought within the ambit of public order. The learned detaining authority has not given a proper reply to the averments made in para 18 of the writ petition. With regard to this paragraph 18, the reply is frivolous and misleading and it has not been denied that the petitioner is not a member of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha. This fact should have been examined by the detaining authority. On this count, the counter- affidavit of the District Magistrate is not satisfactory. No consideration of all these aspects shows inappropriate application of mind and on the part of the detaining authority. 12. Thus it is evident and proved that the criminal graph of the petitioner has a rising trend and are almost controllable ordinarily. The element of disturbance of public order by his activities is not established and there is no circumstance that shows that the people in general are actually panicky frightened or terrorised because of his activities. Therefore, the activities of the petitioner do not fall within the ambit of the public order. Consequently it appears that this aspect was not actually considered by the detaining authority while passing the order. 13. In the result this application is allowed and the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 is quashed.