Judgment :- Common Order: (P. Sathasivam, J.) The petitioner in H.C.P.No.337 of 2005, by name, Shanthi wife of Ambi @ Ambigapathy challenges the detention order dated 15.1.2005 detaining her husband as Goonda under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1983 (in short Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). 2. The detenus, by name, Pandian @ Thilpandian, Sathish and P.Arumugam are the petitioners in H.C.P.Nos.421 to 423 of 2005, challenge the detention order dated 4.2.2005 and 6.2.2005 respectively, detaining them as Goonda under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 3. Since the points raised in all these petitions are one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following order. 4. The detenus in all H.C.Ps. are accused Nos.A8, A.17, A.18 and A.16 respectively in Crime No.914 of 2004 under Section 302 IPC r/w 34 IPC on the file of B-2 Vishnu Kanchi Police Station, Kancheepuram District. 5. The incident in the ground case, which is common in all these cases, is alleged to have taken place on 03.09.2004 at Chinna Kancheepuram. It was at about 05.45 p.m. one Sankararaman, Manager of Arulmighu Devarajaswami Thirukoil, Chinna Kancheepuram, was sitting in a plastic chair opposite to the seat of Kuppusamy, the Temple Accountant. One Duraikannu, Office Assistant and A.S.Kannan, Cashier of the Temple, were also present. At that time, two persons came into the temple, entered into the Office Room of Sankararaman and attacked him on his head and right side ear and neck. Then, Sankararaman and others shouted. Two assailants rushed out of the temple with aruvals. The staff of the temple came out and saw the assailants. The assailants with the help of their three associates, who were possessed of two Yamaha and one Hero Honda Motorcycles, and managed to escape. Then the witnesses returned to Office Room and saw Sankararaman succumbing to injuries in the chair itself. The matter was informed to the police. On the complaint of Ganesh, Appraiser of the Temple, a case was registered by Vishnu Kanchi Police in Crime No.914 of 2004 for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. Considering the nature of the offence, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, was nominated as the Chief Investigating Officer. In the meantime, five fake accused surrendered in this case. Considering the nature of the offence, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, was nominated as the Chief Investigating Officer. In the meantime, five fake accused surrendered in this case. Then, during the course of investigation, it was found out that the main conspirator Kathiravan had executed the plan of false surrender with the help of his associates by making them to surrender in the main case. On 09.11.2004, Kathiravan was arrested and, on his confession, it was found out that Sankararaman was murdered in pursuance of the conspiracy, hatched by Jayendra Saraswathi, the seer of Kanchi Mutt, in order to eliminate him, as Sankararaman gave mental torture to Jayendra Saraswathi by writing several letters, exposing the illegal and immoral activities of both Jayendra Saraswathi and Vijayendra Saraswathi. 6. Based on the said incident, namely, the ground case, and taking note of their involvement in the adverse case/cases, the detaining authority after satisfying himself that the detenus are habitual in committing crime and acting in the manner prejudicial to the public order thereby creating fear and panic in the minds of general public of the area and passed the impugned detention orders dated 15.1.2005, 4.2.2005, 6.2.2005 and 6.2.2005 respectively, which are challenged in these petitions. 7. The petitioners have raised several contentions. Even at the outset, Mr.Swamidoss Manokaran and Mr.K.M.Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the order of Division Bench of this Court dated 5.5.2005 passed in H.C.P.Nos.79 of 2005, etc. batch, quashing the detention orders passed in respect of other accused with reference to the same incident, namely, Sankararaman murder case on the ground that public order or even tempo of the life has not been affected, nor the detenus created a scene of scare and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of general public in the area, would be applicable to the detenus herein and accordingly, prayed for a similar order quashing the impugned detention orders. 8. On the other hand, Mr.Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, after taking us through the order of the Division Bench and the grounds of detention, would submit that the Division Bench has not considered the individual act of each detenu and also has not gone into the disturbance to public order that occurred, as projected by the respondents. 9. 9. We have carefully considered the above contentions with reference to the impugned detention orders and the earlier order passed by the Division Bench dated 5.5.2005. After analysing the same, we are unable to accept the stand taken by the learned Government Advocate for the following reasons. 10. The Division Bench of this Court, after hearing the arguments of both the sides framed five points for consideration. Among them, the first point is 'non-applicability of public order to the instances quoted'. After dealing with the said question elaborately with reference to factual details as well as the decisions of the Supreme Court, the Division Bench has concluded as under:- "36. In the absence of any material to show that there was a disturbance to the public order in the public place and the people got panic due to the said incident, we are at a loss to understand as to how the detaining authority would uniformly state in all the detention orders: "By committing the above described crime in a public place, he has created fear and panic and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people of the area and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order". 37. It is not the case of the sponsoring authority that all the detenus on whose behalf these habeas corpus petitions have been filed were present at the spot and by their acts in the spot which is a public place, the people in the area felt insecured and fear and panic has been created in the minds of the people in the locality. On the other hand, even according to the sponsoring authority, only two persons entered into the temple and attacked the deceased Sankararaman and came out and sped away from the scene along with three others who were waiting outside the temple with motor-bikes. Thus, it is clear that the conclusion arrived at by the detaining authority as mentioned in the grounds of detention totally contradicts the case of the sponsoring authority. 38. Had the detaining authority properly gone through the statement of Kathiravan and other detenus, where there is a reference to the names of the actual assailants who went inside the temple, the detaining authority would not have formulated such a ground. 38. Had the detaining authority properly gone through the statement of Kathiravan and other detenus, where there is a reference to the names of the actual assailants who went inside the temple, the detaining authority would not have formulated such a ground. Admittedly, either the witnesses for the occurrence or the confession statement of Kathiravan and the confession statements of the actual assailants would not at all refer to any disturbance to the public order immediately after the occurrence. Similarly, it is to be pointed out that it is not the case of the sponsoring authority that the assailants participated in the crime in the area in order to affect the even tempo of the life of the community. 39. As indicated above, the incident or incidents quoted in all the detention orders would pertain to the specific individuals who were attacked by some detenus on the basis of the conspiracy hatched by other detenus to execute the design of attacking Radhakrishnan at Mandaveli, Chennai, and murdering Sankararaman at Chinna Kancheepuram, the individuals." It is also relevant to refer to the conclusion arrived at in paragraphs 46, 47 and 48: "46. In the cases on hand in which detention orders have been passed, it was never shown to the detaining authority through the materials that the disturbance to the public order was such that it affected the even tempo of life of the community. It is true that as stated above, in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority had stated that by committing this offence in public the detenu created a sense of alarm, scare and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public of the area and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. But, this sort of citation of these words is more in the nature of a ritual rather than with any significance. 47. As indicated by the Supreme Court, the mere words in the grounds of detention with reference to the feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public of the area would not be sufficient to inject the requisite degree of quality to show that the incident was so grave as to disturb the normal life of the community in the locality, in the absence of such materials. 48. 48. Thus, in these cases, the materials have not been placed before the detaining authority to indicate that due to the ground incident, there is a disturbance to the public order and tempo of life has been greatly affected, thereby the detenus created a sense of scare and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public." 11. The above said conclusions arrived at by the Division Bench cannot be assailed by the respondents before this Court. Though it is stated that the State has preferred appeal before the Supreme Court, the fact remains that no order has been produced except an information that Special Leave Petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court on 30.7.2005. In the absence of any order/stay order passed by the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench of this Court, namely, there is no material to show that there is disturbance to public order and the tempo of life is affected and the detenus have created a sense of insecurity and scare in the minds of public, is binding on us. Moreover, it is not in dispute that out of 15 persons alleged to have been involved in Sankararaman murder case, the Division Bench has quashed the detention orders relating to 11 persons and the present petitions relate to remaining four persons. 12. Mr.Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learned Government Advocate has contended that the decision of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA v. AMRIT LAL MANCHANDA ( 2004(3) SCC 75 ) has not been considered by the Division Bench. He heavily relied upon paragraph-7 of the said decision. In the said paragraph, their Lordships have dealt with the object of law of preventive detention. Here, the point is whether the detaining authority has possessed relevant materials to substantiate the ground that there is disturbance to public order and public peace and sense of scare and insecurity in the minds of public due to the murder of Sakararaman. We have already referred to the factual finding arrived at by the Division Bench. Here, the point is whether the detaining authority has possessed relevant materials to substantiate the ground that there is disturbance to public order and public peace and sense of scare and insecurity in the minds of public due to the murder of Sakararaman. We have already referred to the factual finding arrived at by the Division Bench. Inasmuch as, even according to the prosecution, the detenus in all these petitions had a role in Sankararaman murder case along with others, namely, the detenus in the case before the Division Bench, we hold that all the four detenus in these petitions are entitled to the benefit of the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench. Hence, we reject the argument of the learned Government Advocate. In the light of what is stated above, all these petitions are allowed and the detention orders are set aside. The detenus are directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless they are required in connection with any other case.