ORDER Saksena, J. -- 1. Petitioner, the detenu, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashment of the order dated 8.6.2012 (Annexure P-1) whereby he has been detained under the provisions of National Security Act, 1980. ORDER Saksena, J. -- 1. Petitioner, the detenu, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashment of the order dated 8.6.2012 (Annexure P-1) whereby he has been detained under the provisions of National Security Act, 1980. The aforesaid detention order was passed by District Magistrate, Indore on the following grounds : ^^1- vki ,d ‘kkfrj cnek’k gksdj vkijkf/kd izo`fRr ds yksxksa ds lkFk jgdj o”kZ 2006 ls vijk/k ?kfVr djrs gq, vkids }kjk ekjihV] pkdwckth] izk.k|krd geyk tSls 5 vijk/k ?kfVr fd, gSaA vkids }kjk ?kfVr dh tkus okyh ?kVukvksa ls yksd&OoLFkk ij izfrdwy izHkko iM+rk gSA vikdh vijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ksa dks jksdus ds fy;s le;≤ ij izfrca/kkRed dk;Zokgh dh xbZ gSA 2- fnukad 4-6-2012 dks jkf= 10%10 cts ukjk;.k e.MyksbZ fir [ksepan e.MyksbZ tc dke djds ?kj ij vk jgk Fkk fd tSls gh og vxzoky dh nqdku ds lkeus igq¡pk rks ns[kk fd mlds yM+ds xksiky firk ukjk;.k e.MyksbZ dks dkyw mQZ iq:”kksRre ikyhoky o vkius ‘kjkc ihus ds fy;s ikuh ugha nsus ds dkj.k tku ls ekjus dh uh;r ls pkdw ekjs tks mlds yM+ds xksiky ds nkfgus iSj dh tk¡?k ds ikl yxs rFkk [kwu cgus yxkA yM+dk fpYyk;k rks ukjk;.k e.MyksbZ chp&cpko djus x;k rks mls Hkh dkyw us nkfgus gkFk dh gFksyh ijh pksV igq¡pkbZA bl ?kVuk ls {ks= esa ng’kr dk okrkouj.k fufeZr gksdj yksd&OoLFkk Hkax&lh gks xbZA fjiksVZ ij Fkkuk bankSj ij vijk/k dz- 204@12 /kkjk 307] 34 Hkk-na-fo- o 3¼2½@3¼5½ dk iathc) duj foospuk esa fy;k x;kA bl ?kVuk ls tu&lkekU esa dkQh ng’kr gks xbZ gS] ykxs vius&vkidks vlgk; eglwl dj jgs gSA bl ?kVuk ds lekpkj fnukad 5-6-2012 dks lekpkj&i= jkt ,Dlizsl] bankSj if=dk] nSfud HkkLdj] ubZ nqfu;k¡] nacx nqfu;k¡ esa foLr`r :i ls izdkf’kr gq, gSA vkids fo#) le; jgrs dBksj dk;Zokgh ugha dh xbZ rks vki dHkh&Hkh mDr izdkj dh ?kVuk ?kfVr dj yksd&OoLfkk dks Hkax dj ldrs gSA vr% vkids fo#) jklqdk ds rgr dk;Zokgh dh tkuk furkar vko’;d gks x;k gSA 3- os fooj.k ftudk bl ekeys ls laca/k gS] uhps n’kkZbZ xbZ vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSA 4- vkidks mDr vkns’k ds fo#) x`g ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh] jkT; ‘kklu ¼izeq[k lfpo] e-iz- ‘kklu x`g ¼lh½ foHkkx] Hkksiky½ dks vH;kosnu djus dk vf/kdkj gS rFkk ea=.kk cksMZ ds le{k mifLFkr gksdj viuk i{k&leFkZu djus ,oa vH;kosnu djus dk vf/kdkj gSA vuqlwph 1- fnukad 4-3-2006 dks vkius Qfj;knh vkuan firk lqjs’k fcyjoku o mlds HkkbZ dks iqjkus fookn dks ysdj /kkjnkj gfFk;kj [kq[knh ls ekjihV dj pksV igq¡pkbZ] uaxh&uaxh xkfy;k¡ nh] pkdw o tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nhA Qfj;knh dh lwpuk ij ls Fkkuk twuh bankSj ij vijk/k dz- 94@2006 /kkjk 324] 323] 294] 506] 34 Hkk-na-fo- dk dk;e dj ckn foospuk pkyku U;k;ky; is’k fd;k x;k] ftldh udy tjk;e jftLVj ifjf’k”V dz- 1 ij layXu gSA 2- fnukad 11-3-2009 dks vkius Qfj;knh jkds’k xykuh dh LdwVj uacj ,e ih 09&;w@5039 ckiw uxj ls pqjkdj ys x;k] Qfj;knh dh lwpuk ij ls Fkkuk twuh bankSj ij vijk/k dz- 126@2006 /kkjk 379 Hkk-na-fo- dk dk;e dj izdj.k esa nkSjku foospuk vkjksih nhid dks fxjrkj fd;k tkdj Qfj;knh dh pksjh xbZ LdwVj tIr dh xbZA izdj.k esa ckn foospuk pkyku U;k;ky; esa is’k fd;k x;k] ftldh udy ifjf’k”V dz- 2 ij layXu gSA 3- vkids }kjk fnukad 15-7-2010 dks vius lkfFk;ksa lfgr ,der gksdj Qfj;knh lat; dkeys ds lkFk voS/k olwyh dks ysdj ekjihV] >xM+k&Qlkn dj] tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nhA fjiksVZ ij ls Fkkuk twuh bankSj ij vijk/k dz-267@10 /kkjk 327] 323] 294] 506] 34 rk-fg- dk dk;e dj izdj.k esa ckn foospuk pkyku U;k;ky; is’k fd;k x;k] ftldh udy izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ifjf’k”V dz- 3 ij layXu gSA 4- vkids }kjk fnukad 2-9-2010 dks vius lkfFk;ksa lfgr ,der gksdj Qfj;knh eqds’k yqfu;k ls ‘kjkc ihus ds fy;s iSls ek¡xs] ugha nsus ij v’yhy xkfy;k¡ nh o tku ls ekjus dh uh;r ls ryokj] lfj;s ,oa yV~B ls ekjihV dj izk.k?kkrd pksV igq¡pkbZA Qfj;knh dh fjiksVZ ij ls Fkkuk twuh bankSj ij vijk/k dz- 343@10 /kkjk 307] 394] 34 Hkk-na-fo- bZtkQk /kkjk 25 vkElZ ,DV dk izdj.k dk;e fd;k tkdj foospuk esa fy;k tkdj izdj.k esa ckn foospuk pkyku U;k;ky; esa is’k fd;k x;k] ftldh udy izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ifjf’k”V dz- 4 ij layXu gSA 5- fnukad 4-6-2012 dks jkf= 10%10 cts ukjk;.k e.MyksbZ firk [ksepan e.MyksbZ tc dke djds ?kj ij vk jgk Fkk fd tSls gh og vxzoky dh nqdku ds lkeus igq¡pk rks ns[kk fd mlds yM+ds xksiky firk ukjk;.k e.MyksbZ dks dkyw mQZ iq:”kksRre ikyhoky o vkius ‘kjkc ihus ds fy;s ikuh ugha nsus ds dkj.k tku ls ekjus dh uh;r ls pkdw ekjs tks mlds yM+ds xksiky ds nkfgu iSj dh tk¡?k ds ikl yxs rFkk [kwu cgus yxkA yM+dk fpYyk;k rks ukjk;.k e.MyksbZ chp&cpko djus x;k rks mls Hkh dkys us nkfgus gkFk dh gFksyh ij pksV igq¡pkbZA bl ?kVuk ls {ks= esa ng’kr dk okrkoj.k fufeZr gksdj yksd&OoLFkk Hkax&lh gks xbZA fjiksVZ ij Fkkuk twuh bankSj ij vijk/k dz- 204@12 /kkjk 307] 34 Hkk-na-fo- o 3¼2½@3¼5½ dk iathc) dj foospuk esa fy;k x;kA bl izdkj mijksDr ls eq>s ;g fo’okl gks x;k gS fd vki fudV Hkfo”; esa blh izdkj d`R; dj yksd&OoLFkk dks Hkax dj ldrs gSA vkidk Lora= :i ls fopj.k djuk tu&lk/kkj.k ds fgr esa u gksdj ?kkrd gSA lkFk&gh yksd&OoLFkk Hkax gksus dh izcy laHkkouk gSA eq>s blfy, vkid fo#) jk”Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 dh /kkjk 3¼2½ ds rgr dk;Zokgh dh tkuk vko’;d gks x;k gSA mijksDr fujks/k ds vk/kkj ij vkt fnukad 8-6-2012 dks U;k;ky;hu eqnzk o esjs gLrk{kj ls tkjh fd, x,A ftyk naMkf/kdkjh ftyk bankSj] e-iz-** 2. The aforesaid order was passed on the representation made by Superintendent of Police, West District Indore on 7.6.2012. On the same day, the grounds of the order along with its particulars were supplied to detenu and he was sent to Central Jail, Rewa in execution of the detention order. An information in this regard was supplied to his father Radheshyam Purohit on the same day. Detention order was approved by the Government. 3. Petitioner has challenged his detention order mainly on the grounds that the said order was issued without affording any opportunity of hearing to him or giving any show cause notice to him and that the grounds on which the detention order was passed pertained merely to the law and order and not to public order since they did not affect the public at large. 4. As far as the first ground of challenge is concerned, the provisions of detention under National Security Act find roots in Articles 21, 22 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 postulates that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except to the procedure established by law. Before a person is deprived of his life or personal liberty, the procedure established by law must be strictly followed and must not be departed from to the disadvantage of the person affected. Although Article 19 guarantees the freedom of all citizens to move freely throughout the territory of India, but it is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the Constitution of India. In the beginning in Gopalan A.K. v. State of Madras [ AIR 1957 SC 688 ], the apex Court held that the rights conferred by Article 19 are the rights of free men and a person whose personal liberty has been taken away under a valid law of punitive (Article 21) or preventive (Article 22) detention cannot complain of the infringement of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19. According to this view, Articles 21, 22 formed a self-contained code to which the other provisions of Part III were not attracted. According to this view, Articles 21, 22 formed a self-contained code to which the other provisions of Part III were not attracted. Though this view has, however, been overturned, bit by bit, by the Supreme Court itself, but in cases of Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal [ AIR 1975 SC 550 ], and Haradhon Saha v. State of West Bengal [ AIR 1974 SC 2154 ], the Supreme Court held that even though Article 19 may be applicable, a law of preventive detention, which complies with the requirements of Article 22(5), cannot be held to offend against Article 19, as the elements of procedural reasonableness and natural justice are embodied in Article 22(5) itself. Even otherwise the law of preventive detention is not punitive, since the objective of preventive detention is to prevent a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Therefore, the grant of opportunity of hearing or issue of show cause notice before passing of the detention order would essentially frustrate the objective of the law. What the detaining authority is bound to do, is to follow the procedure strictly provided in the statute, as such we are of the view that detenu can claim no right of peremptory bearing or a show cause notice, before the detention order is passed by the authority. 5. Next ground of challenge of the detention is that the incidents, which have been made grounds for passing the detention order, are either stale or do not pertain to’public order’. 6. In the order dated 8.6.2012, District Magistrate mentioned that in the year 2006, detenu committed five offences like Maar-peet, stabbing and attempt to commit murder etc. which affected public order of the society. For preventing such activities of the detenu time to time preventive measures were also taken. 7. The latest ground relates to the incident dated 4.6.2012 wherein it is alleged that in the night at about 10 O’clock detenu and his associate, Kalu @ Purushottam caused knife injury to Gopal when he did not give water to them for consuming liquor. Knife injury was caused on his thigh. When his father Narayan Mandloi tried to save him, Kalu also caused injury on his hand. Knife injury was caused on his thigh. When his father Narayan Mandloi tried to save him, Kalu also caused injury on his hand. It is alleged that by this incident an atmosphere of terror was created in the area and the public order was disrupted. On report being lodged with the police, offence under section 307/34 IPC and section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered. 8. On perusal of the first information report of the aforesaid incident, it is revealed that it was lodged at 11:00 p.m., but it was not disclosed in it that any terror was caused in the locality or it affected anybody else than the victims of the incident. Though the said incident is said to have taken place near the shop of one Agrawal, but no particulars about the fact that the incident in any manner affected the public or the locality at large or unleashed a terror in the locality were given. 9. Supreme Court in number of cases held that there is clear distinction between “law and order” and “public order” and pointed the difference between the two. In case of Victoria Fernandes v. Lalmal Sawma and others [ AIR 1992 SC 687 ], Supreme Court held : “The distinction between the areas of ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ is one of degree and extent of the reach of the act in question on society. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. If a contravention in its effect is confined only to a few individuals directly involved as distinct from a wide spectrum of public, it would raise the problem of law and order only. It is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular eruption of disorder that helps distinguish it as an act affecting ‘public order’ from that concerning ‘law and order’. The question to ask is : Does it lead to disturbance of the current life of the community so as to amount to 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 its facts. {See : Dr. The question to ask is : Does it lead to disturbance of the current life of the community so as to amount to 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 its facts. {See : Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar [ (1966)1 SCR 709 = AIR 1966 SC 740 ]; Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal [ (1970)3 SCR 288 = AIR 1970 SC 1228 ]; Ram Ranjan Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal [ (1975)3 SCR 301 = AIR 1975 SC 609 ]; Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration [ (1982)2 SCC 403 = AIR 1982 SC 1143 ]}. 10. Keeping in view the above proposition of law, if we examine the aforesaid ground, we find that the act of detenu was merely individual in the sense that it affected only two injured persons, but did not affect the peace of tranquility of rest of the community in any manner, therefore, it could not be held to be a breach of public order constituting the basis of detention of the petitioner. 11. The ground relating to the incident dated 4.3.2006 is that because of an old dispute petitioner abused complainant and his brother and intimidated them by knife for which offence under sections 324, 323, 294, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Apparently this incident also related to individual person and did not cause any breach of public order. Apart from it, it is stale also, since it cannot be held to be proximate or relevant for forming the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in the year 2012. 12. Other ground that on 11.3.2009 detenu committed theft of the scooter of Rakesh Galani and thereby committed offence under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, in our opinion, cannot by any stretch of imagination be held to have caused breach of public order, in the absence of any particulars about the desperate character of the detenu indicating his indulgence in such type of activities regularly and affecting the public at large. 13. In the ground pertaining to the incident dated 15.7.2010 detenu along with his associates is said to have assaulted and intimidated complainant Sanjay Kamle for illegally extorting money from him. 13. In the ground pertaining to the incident dated 15.7.2010 detenu along with his associates is said to have assaulted and intimidated complainant Sanjay Kamle for illegally extorting money from him. Similarly on 2.9.2010 he and his associates demanded money from complainant Mukesh Luniya for liquor and on not yielding his demand, hurled abuses and in an attempt to cause death, assaulted him with sword, iron rod and stick causing serious injuries to him. On report being lodged by complainant a case under sections 294, 307/34 IPC was registered against detenu and his associates. On examining the first information reports of both the aforesaid incidents, it transpires that the incidents occurred at public places and detenu and his associates attempted to extort money from the complainants and also caused injuries to complainants. In the later incident, they reached armed with weapons at the milk diary of complainant in the night at about 8:30 p.m. and after abusing and intimidating him, caused serious injuries to him. 14. Looking to the nature of the above incidents, it can be concluded that the aforesaid acts of detenu could have impact upon large section of the community and have affect on the public order, but the fact remains that detaining authority passed the detention order on 8.6.2012 on the basis of incident which occurred in the night of 4.6.2012. As we have already found that the said incident did not amount to be an activity of detenu affecting the public order, it is difficult to hold that the detention order could have been passed on the basis of incidents, which occurred in the year 2010, i.e., about 2 years earlier to the passing of detention order. The activities of detenu which could have been prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the year 2010 cannot be held to be proximate and relevant for forming subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority for passing the detention order on 8.6.2012. No doubt, had the incident dated 4.6.2012 affected the public order of the society, the activities of detenu which affected public order of the society in the year 2010 could have been relevant, as the past conduct or antecedent history of detenu, and could appropriately be taken into account in making the detention order. 15. No doubt, had the incident dated 4.6.2012 affected the public order of the society, the activities of detenu which affected public order of the society in the year 2010 could have been relevant, as the past conduct or antecedent history of detenu, and could appropriately be taken into account in making the detention order. 15. Since the detaining authority passed the detention order making the incident of 4.6.2012 a ground of detention of petitioner which we have found not affecting the public order, merely on the basis of past history of the detenu which, in our opinion, was not proximate or relevant for constituting the subjective satisfaction for passing the detention order, in our opinion, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the petition and quash the detention order No.30/Detn./St./2012 dated 8.6.2012 passed against the petitioner. Respondents are directed to release the petitioner immediately if not required in any other case. .............