L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE collector and District Magistrate, Kadapa, the 1st respondent, passed an order dated 15-3-2004, directing detention of the husband of the petitioner, Sri Pasupuleti Mohan (for short the detenu ), under Section 3 (1) and (2), read with Section 2 (a) and 2 (g) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short the Act ). The order was approved by the Government, the 2nd respondent, as required under sub- section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, through its order in GO. Rt No. 1421, dated 23. 3. 2004. The detenu could not be apprehended after the order of detention was passed. W. P. No. 8558 of 2004 was filed challenging the order of detention. It was dismissed on 18-11-2004. Thereafter, the detenu was surrendered on 30-11-2004. The representation made by him was placed before the advisory Committee. The Committee submitted its report on 28-12-2004. On a consideration of the same, the 2nd respondent confirmed the order of detention, through g. O. Rt. No. 14, dated 1-1-2005. The petitioner challenges the same by filing this writ of habeas corpus. ( 2 ) IT is contended that the detenu cannot be treated as goonda, as defined under the Act, and that the order of detention was passed in a mechanical way, without application of mind in flagrant violation of the Constitution of India and the Act. Irrelevant and non-existent grounds are said to have been taken into account. It is urged that the instances alleged against the detenu, do not disclose any offence, punishable under Section 379 I. P. C. ; that the offence under the Forest Laws cannot constitute the basis for detention, and that the fourth incident dated 1-3-2004, does not indicate any offence of theft. It is also pleaded that no crimes have been registered against the detenu, in any Police Station, with reference to the incidents alleged against him, and that the said incidents cannot be said to have affected the public order. ( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, the facts that led to the passing the order of detention are narrated. ( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, the facts that led to the passing the order of detention are narrated. The detention is sought to be justified by stating that the detenu had resorted to several acts, namely, cutting and smuggling of rare and valuable timber, such as Red sanders, constitute offence under Section 379 i. P. C. , and in turn would affect public order. ( 4 ) SRI C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the detenu cannot be treated as the Goonda, and in that view of the matter, the very order of detention is vitiated. Drawing comparison with the corresponding Act of the Tamil Nadu state, learned Senior Counsel contends that the offences under Forest Laws were specifically brought within the fold of the Tamil Nadu Act, and in the absence of such a provision in the A. P. Act, the impugned order of detention cannot be sustained in law. He further urges that the four instances alleged against the detenu, at the most, may constitute an offence under I. P. C. , or wrongs, under the relevant Forest Laws, and they cannot be said to have resulted in disturbance of public order. He submits that in the fourth instance attributed to the detenue, no allegation is made to the effect that he had stolen any forest produce. ( 5 ) SRI A. Satya Prasad, learned Senior counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, submits that the detenu was indulging in indiscriminate cutting and smuggling of rare and valuable timber of national pride, namely, red sander. He contends that the detenu was taking advantage of the pace, at which the proceedings before the ordinary Courts of law move, and was resorting to repeated acts of denuding forest, for his personal gain and was causing serious threat to the public order. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the order of detention accords with the law laid down by the Supreme court and this Court, from time to time, interpreting the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the enactments providing for preventive detention. ( 6 ) THE concept of preventive detention is in vogue, since last several decades. Different legislations existed, before and after independence, providing for preventive detention. ( 6 ) THE concept of preventive detention is in vogue, since last several decades. Different legislations existed, before and after independence, providing for preventive detention. The validity of such laws, or the orders made thereunder, were the subject-matter of several important decisions rendered by the Supreme Court. In the post-independence era, such enactments or the orders of detention were tested on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The law has been developed and analyzed to such an extent, and from so many angles, that there exists hardly any facets of it, left untouched. ( 7 ) THE Andhra Pradesh State legislature had enacted the Act with an object to curtail different kinds of activities, such as, Boot-legging, Dacoity, Goondaism, land Grabbing etc. Section 3 of the Act empowers the 2nd respondent to detain a person, if it is satisfied that such person is a bootlegger, Dacoit, Drug Offender, Goonda, immoral Traffic Offender, or a land grabber. The object is to prevent such persons from"acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order". The expression quoted above is defined under clause (a) of Section (2), as under: "section 2 (a): "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" means when a boot-legger, a dacoit, a drug offender, a goonda, an immoral traffic offender or a land grabber is engaged or is making preparations for engaging in any of his activities as such, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order. Explanation: For the purpose of this clause public order shall be deemed to have been affected adversely, or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely inter alia, if any of the activities of any of the persons referred to in this clause directly or indirectly, is causing or calculated to cause any harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life or public health. " ( 8 ) IN the instant case, the detenu was treated as goonda, as defined under Section 2 (g ). " ( 8 ) IN the instant case, the detenu was treated as goonda, as defined under Section 2 (g ). It reads as under: section 2 (g): "goonda" means a person, who either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian penal Code. " ( 9 ) THE basis for passing of an order against the detenu is stated in the impugned order. A perusal of the same discloses that, in forming an opinion, that the detenu was acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the 1st respondent took into account the following four instances:"1. O. R. No. 79/2003-04, dated 21-12-2003 balapalli Range under Section 379 IPC. Section 20 (i) C (i) (ii) of A. P. Forest Act, 1967 charge-sheet is being filed in Hon ble Court of Rajampet. CC No. awaited. 2. OR No:54/2003-04, dated 29-1-2004 Chitvel range 379 IPC. Section 20 (i) C (ii), (iii) and X of A. P. Forest Act, 1967 Charge-sheet is being filed in Hon ble Court of Rajampet. CC No. awaited. 3. OR No. 6672003-04, dated 26-2-2004 Chitvel range under Section 379 IPC. Section 20 (i) c (ii), (iii) and X of A. P. Forest Act, 1967 charge-sheet is being filed in Hon ble Court of Rajampet. CC No. awaited. 4. OR No:109/2003-04, dated 1-3-2004 Kodur range under Section 379 IPC. Section 20 (i) c (iii) of A. P. Forest Act, 1967 Charge-sheet is being filed in Hon ble Court of Rajampet. CC No. awaited. " ( 10 ) THESE incidents are elaborated in the grounds of detention, served upon the detenu. The petitioner urges that, while in respect of first three incidents, it was alleged that the detenu was chased, when he was smuggling the red sanders, illegally, cut and stolen from the forest, there is no allegation as to theft of red sanders in the 4th incident. The red sanders said to have been cut by the detenu and his accomplices, are said to have been stocked near the bushes. The red sanders said to have been cut by the detenu and his accomplices, are said to have been stocked near the bushes. From the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel for the State, the following questions arise for consideration: (a) whether the detenu can be said to be a goonda, as defined under section 2 (g) of the Act, and (b) whether the acts attributed to the detenu can be said to have resulted any prejudice to the maintenance of public order. ( 11 ) THE definition of "goonda" under the Act, has been extracted in the preceding paragraphs. The definition takes in its fold, not only the actual commission of the offences, punishable under Chapters XVI, xvii and XXII of the I. P. C. , but also attempts to commit or abetment to the commission of such offences. It is categorically alleged against the petitioner that he has been indulging in the theft and smuggling of red sanders, from the reserve forests of the State. As many as four instances are cited. It would have been different thing altogether, if the definition required that a person must have been facing trial, in relation to offences punishable under the Chapters referred to above, or, must have been convicted. Having regard to the broad scope of the definition, taking in its fold, the attempts to commit such offences, it cannot be said that the detenu does not come within the definition of goonda. In this context, it must not be forgotten that in certain cases, even attempt to, or abetment of, committing offences, by themselves, constitute independent offence. Reference in this context need to be made to sections 121, 122, 126, 307, 308, 309 and section 511 I. P. C. Therefore, it is rather difficult to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the detenu. ( 12 ) IT is strenuously contended that even assuming that the detenue can be treated as goonda, within the meaning of the relevant provision, the acts against him do not have any effect on the public order, and at the most, may constitute individual offences, if proved. Reliance is placed upon several judgments of the Supreme Courts and this Court, in support of the contention. ( 13 ) MOST of the preventive detention laws were enacted with an object of maintaining public order. Reliance is placed upon several judgments of the Supreme Courts and this Court, in support of the contention. ( 13 ) MOST of the preventive detention laws were enacted with an object of maintaining public order. Whether the law was enacted in relation to maintenance of internal security, prevention of economic offences, or curbing boot-legging, land grabbing, dacoity, etc. , the object is, ultimately to ensure the prevalence of the public order. A glance at the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court, on this subject, for the past five decades, discloses that the subtle distinction needs to be maintained, between the "law and order" on the one hand, and "public order", on the other hand. Both these are the species of same genus. Another species, which belongs to this genus, is the "security of the State". After referring to its earlier judgments, the supreme Court, in its judgment in Arun ghose v. State of West Bengal, 1970 (1) scc 98 , provided valuable guidelines and parameters, determining as to whether an act, attributed to an individual, constitutes a disturbance of law-and-order or public-order. Justice Hidayatullah, speaking for the bench, held as under:"public order is the even tempo of the life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. Disturbance of public order is to be distinguished from acts directed against individuals which do not disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public tranquility. It is the degree of disturbance and its affect upon the life of the community in a locality which determines whether the disturbance amounts only to a breach of law and order". The principle was supplemented through a useful illustration, which reads as under:"take the case of assault on girls. A guest at a hotel may kiss or make advances to half a dozen chamber maids. He may annoy them and also the management but he does not cause disturbance of public order. He may even have a fracas with the friends of one of the girls but even then it would be a case of breach of law and order only. Take another case of a man who molests women in lonely places. As a result of his activities girls going to colleges and schools are in constant danger and fear. Women going for their ordinary business are afraid of being waylaid and assaulted. Take another case of a man who molests women in lonely places. As a result of his activities girls going to colleges and schools are in constant danger and fear. Women going for their ordinary business are afraid of being waylaid and assaulted. The activity of this man in its essential quality is not different from the act of the other man but in its potentiality and in its affect upon the public tranquility there is a vast difference. The act of the man who molests the girls in lonely places causes a disturbance in the even tempo of living which is the first requirement of public order. He disturbs the society and the community. His act makes all the women apprehensive of their honour and he can be said to be causing disturbance of public order and not merely committing individual actions which may be taken note of by the criminal prosecution agencies. "the discussion, in this regard, was summed up with the following observations:"it is always a question of degree of the harm and its affect upon the community. The question to ask is: Does it lead to disturbance of the current of life of the community so as to amount a disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquility of the society undisturbed? This question has to be faced in every case on facts. There is no formula by which one case can be distinguished from another. "the principle enunciated in Arun Ghose s case (supra), was cited with approval, in numerous subsequent decisions. For example, in Kanu v. State of West Bengal, (1972) 3 scc 831 , after citing the passages referred to above, the Supreme Court observed as under:"the question whether a man has only committed a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause a disturbance of the public order, according to the dictum laid down in the above case, is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the act upon the society. "the same principle was applied by the supreme Court in the recent judgments in commissioner of Police v. C. Anita, (2004) 7 SCC 467 ; State of U. P. v. Sanjai Pratap gupta, (2004) 8 SCC 591 , and State of tamil Nadu v. Kethiyan Perumal, 2005 crl. LJ 105. "the same principle was applied by the supreme Court in the recent judgments in commissioner of Police v. C. Anita, (2004) 7 SCC 467 ; State of U. P. v. Sanjai Pratap gupta, (2004) 8 SCC 591 , and State of tamil Nadu v. Kethiyan Perumal, 2005 crl. LJ 105. ( 14 ) THEREFORE, it needs to be seen as to whether the acts attributed to the detenu can be said to have caused any prejudice to the public order. If one looks at the definition of goonda, under the Act, it is evident that, offences, which otherwise may not be having effect on the society, at large, but, if committed, or attempted to be committed, habitually, can result in disturbance to maintenance of public order. This would be more clear, if one reads section 2 (a) of the Act, which describes the purport of the expression, "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order". If habitual commission of offences, which are mostly against the individuals, or against the members, can be treated as a threat to public order, the consequences flowing from theft of valuable public property cannot be underestimated. ( 15 ) PROTECTION of environment is recognized as one of the fundamental duties, and incorporated as directive principles under the Constitution. Reserve Forests are national wealth and the protection thereof, is the duty of everyone. The denudation of the forest cannot be viewed from the narrow sense of theft, of a log of wood, or any other forest produce. Apart from causing financial loss to the community, at large, the ecological balance gets disturbed and damaged. If the timber involved, is of a rare species, the crime has further dimensions. Red sanders is rare product, which is available only in few forests, of states of Andhra Pradesh. Karnataka and tamil Nadu. The product has got international market. Separate provisions are made for the protection thereof. Any acts or attempt to illegal cutting of the red sander trees and smuggling the timber, would certainly have its impact on the public order. Having regard to the huge money involved, the promoters of such activities maintain gangs and commit breach of all possible norms of life of provisions of law. Separate provisions are made for the protection thereof. Any acts or attempt to illegal cutting of the red sander trees and smuggling the timber, would certainly have its impact on the public order. Having regard to the huge money involved, the promoters of such activities maintain gangs and commit breach of all possible norms of life of provisions of law. If the habitual commission of offences of ordinary nature can attract the provisions of the Act and can be treated as threat to public order, there does not exist any reason why such activities, in relation to a rare timber, of national pride, cannot be treated as such. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the acts alleged against the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. ( 16 ) IT is urged that there is a special provision under the Tamil Nadu Act, namely, section 5 (A), which brought into the fold of the Act, the offences under the Forest laws, and in the absence of the same in the A. P. Act. , detention of a person for the alleged theft or attempt to commit theft, of forest produce, cannot be sustained. The purport of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu act was considered by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Kethiyan perumal (supra ). It has already been indicated in the preceding paragraphs that if the acts of an individual, in relation to theft of unspecified goods, can constitute the basis to pass an order of preventive detention, and there is no reason why the same cannot be done, if the goods so stolen, happen to be valuable forest produce. Existence of provision may enable the authority to pass an order of detention, in relation to the forest offences, if it is otherwise impermissible to pass an order of detention. The absence of a provision similar to Section 5 (A), of the Tamil Nadu Act, does not, in any way, render the impugned order of detention illegal. ( 17 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of detention. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.