JUDGMENT Hon’ble K.K. Misra, J.—Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 5.8.2005 passed by District Magistrate, Meerut-respondent No. 2 under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act. 2. The grounds of the detention are contained in Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. It is stated therein that detenu was a book binder and when on 23.7.2005 at about 1.30 p.m one Kumari Rupal Jain aged about 11 years, class VII student, went to the shop of the detenu for the binding a book, the detenu took her inside the shop and played with her private parts with bad intention and tried to rape her. On her cries a large number of people gathered there. The incident turned into an ugly incident and took colour of Hindu Muslim dispute. The crowd caught hold of him and after closing their shops went to Police station Sadar Bazar where case crime No. 253 of 2005 was registered against him on the report of Chandra Gupta Jain—father of the girl. During the investigations, it also came to light that the detenu was once found naked with two women. In this regard also, a case was registered against him. The detaining authority further found that the detenu was a characterless person. The incident occurred in pious Sravana month when religious feeling of Kavariyas who had assembled in the city were at peak and due to this incident they became much agitated. The life of the society was paralyzed. The situation was controlled after great efforts of police and administrative authorities, M.L.As and other respected people of the locality as it had taken colour of communal dispute. Due to this incident the public order was completely broken. Therefore, the detaining authority thought it fit to impose the detention order on the detenu to maintain public order. 3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. 4. We have heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Tripathi, learned A.G.A. None turned up from the side of the Union of India. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner wanted to assail the detention order on the ground that it is a case of law and order and not public order. Therefore, the impugned detention order is vitiated in law according to his submission. 6. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner wanted to assail the detention order on the ground that it is a case of law and order and not public order. Therefore, the impugned detention order is vitiated in law according to his submission. 6. On the other hand,Sri Arvind Tripathi, learned A.G.A argued that the girl was a minor aged about 11 years studying in class VII and belonged to Hindu community. On earlier occasion also, the detenu was found having intercourse with two ladies belonging to Hindu community and he was a person of loose character repeatedly indulging in such activities. Attempt of rape was made by the petitioner at his shop situated on the main road, which was the main route from where Kavariyas used to pass. The detenu was a Muslim and the girl whose rape was attempted was a Hindu minor girl and when she raised alarm, the people reached there in order to save her. This, according to the detention order, created panic in the vicinity. The administration, according to the detention order, had to employ additional force. Calm could be maintained with the intervention of local leaders and respectable members of the society. All this exercise was taken up in order to avoid the outbreak of communal riot. The magnitude of the situation clearly shows that the case was of public order and not of law and order. 7. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of the life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Admittedly, the incident occurred in a shop at a busy public way. The incident caused great anguish amongst the members of Hindu community. The out -break of communal riots was imminent and due to the efforts of leaders and other respected persons, the same could be avoided after deploying additional police for maintaining the public order. Moreover, the detenu was found indulging in such activities earlier also. Therefore, the detaining authority rightly imposed the detention order against the petitioner. 8. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. Petition Dismissed. ———