JUDGMENT Honble M.C. Jain, J.—The petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 24-5-2005, passed against him by respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Rampur, under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 and his continued detention thereunder. 2. The grounds of detention are contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. They are based on an incident dated 3-2-2005 of about 11 a.m. which occurred in Mohalla Kunda, near Zeeno Wali Masjid, P.S. Kotwali, District Rampur with regard to which an F.I.R. (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) was lodged by Tauqir alias Javed son of Mahmood Ahmad the same day at 11.15 a.m. The petitioner and his brothers allegedly committed the double murder of Khushnud @ Shahid and his brother Iqtedar alias Mujahid by indiscriminate shooting. They were constructing a balcony in their house to which the petitioner and his brothers objected while shooting them dead. After committing the double murder, the petitioner and his brothers, offering threats to all around, went inside their house with their respective weapons. As a consequence of this dare devilry crime committed by the petitioner and his brothers, women folk and young girls stopped coming out from their houses and moving about. The grounds of detention say that due to this double murder committed by the petitioner and his brothers in broad daylight, an atmosphere of panic and terror was created in the entire area. People ran helter-skelter. Shopkeepers left their shops. Inhabitants of the area concealed themselves inside their houses out of fear. After the incident, till 12-2-2005 police force had to be deployed in the area to infuse sense of security in public and for the maintenance of public order. The details of deployment of police force were also given in the grounds of detention. The detaining authority further stated in the grounds of detention that the petitioner was detained in jail in connection with the said crime but had moved bail application before the Sessions Judge, Rampur on 13-5-2005 which was listed for hearing on 25-5-2005. There was great likelihood of his being released on bail and indulging in similar criminal activities, prejudicial to maintenance of public order. It, therefore, necessitated the passing of the detention order against him under the National Security Act. 3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. 4. There was great likelihood of his being released on bail and indulging in similar criminal activities, prejudicial to maintenance of public order. It, therefore, necessitated the passing of the detention order against him under the National Security Act. 3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. 4. We have heard Shri Imran Ullah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Arvind Tripathi learned A.G.A. representing respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Shri R.D. Tripathi, learned Counsel for Union of India-respondent No. 4. 5. It has first been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he (petitioner) is an editor by profession and he exposed a lot of criminal and illegal activities of officials in Kunda. As such he has been falsely implicated. It has been urged that, in any view of the matter, the incident on the basis of which the impugned detention order has been passed was only a law and order problem having nothing to do with public order. The argument has been countered vehemently by the learned A.G.A. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. It goes without saying that each case has to be judged on its own facts as to whether it relates to law and order or public order. The determining factor is the effect of an act on the life of the community. If the act disturbs and dislocates the even tempo of the life of the community, it would be an act affecting public order. In the present case, the potentiality and reach of the incident was impregnate of disturbing even tempo of life of the community. Double murder in broad daylight was allegedly committed by the petitioner and his brothers simply because the deceased were raising projection/balcony in their house. It is there in the grounds of detention and the counter-affidavit filed by Mrs. Aneeta C. Meshram, District Magistrate concerned that the effect of the activity of the petitioner was clearly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and even tempo of the society, two persons having been done to death by indiscriminate firing resorted to by the petitioner and his brothers in thickly populated area in broad daylight. 7. Aneeta C. Meshram, District Magistrate concerned that the effect of the activity of the petitioner was clearly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and even tempo of the society, two persons having been done to death by indiscriminate firing resorted to by the petitioner and his brothers in thickly populated area in broad daylight. 7. Referring to Annexure 5 to the writ petition (site plan of the place of occurrence prepared by the Investigating Officer), the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no shop at the place where the incident occurred and as such, there could be no question of shopkeepers leaving their shops as mentioned in the grounds of detention. On this premise, he urged that the detention order has been passed in mechanical way without application of mind by the detaining authority. The argument cannot be accepted. It has to be pointed out that an incident like the present one would not affect only 3-4 abutting premises, but it would engulf the whole area, echoing the fallout, adversely affecting the public order, producing panic, terror, sense of insecurity and disturbing the even tempo of the society in great deal. In fact, the petitioner and his brothers allegedly behaved as if they were law unto themselves. We should say as a passing reference that it is gleaned from the site plan aforesaid that their house was not even adjacent to that of the deceased where they were raising Chhajja (balcony). As such, they (accused) were not directly affected by such projection. It is of no consequence at all that the petitioner is an editor by profession. The law of land equally applies to everyone. The grounds of detention even mentioned the details of additional force which had to be deployed at the scene for a number of days (upto 12-2-2005) to restore normalcy and to infuse a sense of confidence in people all around. 8. We are definite that the incident related to public order. The argument that it was only a law and order problem is rejected. 9. It has next been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the State Government did not transmit and forward to the respondent No. 4-Union of India, the order of detention alongwith grounds of detention within seven days as contemplated under Section 3(4) of the National Security Act. Therefore, the detention order is bad. 9. It has next been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the State Government did not transmit and forward to the respondent No. 4-Union of India, the order of detention alongwith grounds of detention within seven days as contemplated under Section 3(4) of the National Security Act. Therefore, the detention order is bad. It is clear from para 4 of the counter-affidavit of Shri Babu Lal, Under Secretary, filed on behalf of State of U.P., respondent No. 1 that the detention order dated 24-5-2005, grounds of detention and all other connected papers forwarded by the District Magistrate concerned through his letter dated 24-5-2005 were received by the State Government on 25-5- 2005. After examining every aspect of the case in detail, the State Government approved the order of detention on 30-5-2005 within 12 days of the date of detention order as required under Section 3 (4) of the Act. The approval of the detention order was communicated to the petitioner through the District authorities by the State Government radiogram and letter both dated 31-5-2005 on the same day. Copy of the detention order, grounds of detention and all other connected papers, received from the District Magistrate, Rampur were also sent to the Central Government by speed post on 31-5-2005 within seven days from the date of approval by the State Government as required under Section 3 (5) of the Act. So, the argument is devoid of substance. 10. The third argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that though the incident in question took place on 3-2-2005, yet the detention order in question was passed after about 3-1/2 months on 24-5-2005 and as such, it is liable to be struck down. In this behalf, we would like to refer to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Yogendra Murari v. State of U.P., (1988) 4 SCC 559 , wherein the question of delay in passing the detention order has been dealt with. It has been ruled that it is not right to assume that an order of detention has to be mechanically struck down if passed after some delay. It is necessary to consider the circumstances in each individual case to find out whether the delay has satisfactorily been explained. It has been ruled that it is not right to assume that an order of detention has to be mechanically struck down if passed after some delay. It is necessary to consider the circumstances in each individual case to find out whether the delay has satisfactorily been explained. If the petitioner was in custody, there could not be any apprehension of his indulging in illegal activities, requiring his detention until the grant of bail by the criminal Court became imminent. In the present case, it has been explained in detention order itself that the petitioner moved his bail application before the Sessions Judge, Rampur on 13-5-2005 which was listed for hearing on 25-5-2005. The grant of bail to the petitioner by the Court was imminent and passing of the detention order at that point of time was justified on the satisfaction that he was likely to indulge in similar criminal activities on being released on bail. Therefore, the petitioner cannot score any point by arguing that there was delay in passing the detention order. 11. Fourthly, it has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner alone was picked up for being proceeded against under the National Security Act with the passing of the detention order whereas, no such order was passed against other accused of the said crime. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Chandresh Paswan v. State of U.P., 1999 (38) ACC 721, has held that order of release from preventive detention cannot be claimed on the basis of parity. Broadly speaking, the question of parity cannot at all arise unless it is shown that all the circumstances concerning the petitioner and others were squarely the same excepting the name difference. There is nothing like that in the present case. The passing of the detention order against the petitioner became necessary at the stage when he was likely to be released on bail consequent upon his moving bail application on 13-5-2005. In any view of the matter, it is for the detaining authority to satisfy as to which particular person out of those involved in an incident is liable to be detained under the law of preventing detention having regard to all the relevant factors and material available before it. We, therefore, do not locate any force in this argument too. 12. We, therefore, do not locate any force in this argument too. 12. It has lastly been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was delay in the decision on the representation of the petitioner. We have examined this aspect of the matter also. It is there in paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, Rampur that representation of the petitioner was received on 4-6-2005 which was considered by him and rejected on 5-6-2005. His representation was sent to the State Government and Central Government through special messenger on 6-6-2005 alongwith parawise comments. The affidavit of Shri Babu Lal, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home, State of U.P. reveals that the petitioner’s representation was received in the concerned Section on 8-6-2005. The concerned Section examined the representation and submitted a detailed note on 9-6-2005, which was examined by the Special Secretary on 9-6-2005 itself and thereafter submitted to the Secretary who too examined the matter on 9-6-2005 and forwarded it to the higher authority for final orders of the State Government. It has also been explained that 11th and 12th June were holidays on account of Saturday and Sunday. After due consideration, the representation was finally rejected on 14-6- 2005 and rejection was communicated to the petitioner through the District authorities by State Government radiogram dated 15-6- 2005. 13. The representation dated 4-6-2005 from the detenu alongwith parawise comments of the detaining authority was received by the Central Government on 7-6-2005 and in the concerned desk of the Ministry of Home Affairs on 8-6-2005. It was immediately processed and rejected on 13-6-2005. Final decision to reject the same was taken up by the Central Government within four days excluding 11th and 12th June (which were holidays being Saturday and Sunday). 14. It is obvious from the above narration of facts that the representation of the detenu was dealt with continuously by the State Government as well as the Central Government and there was no delay in deciding the same. 15. In view of the above discussion, we come to the conclusion that there is no force in any of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The detention order in question does not suffer from any flaw whatsoever. The writ petition is dismissed. Petition Dismissed. ————