No 46 of 1972
S K Bagga for the petitioner
Prodyot Kumar Chakravarty and G section Chatterjee for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Khanna J
This is a petition through jail under article 32 of the Constitution for issuing a writ of habeas cot pus by Kanu Biswas who has been ordered by the District Magistrate 24Parganas to be detained under section 3 of the Act 26 of 1971 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
 The order of detention was made by the District Magistrate on November 13 1971
The petitioner was arrested in pursuance of the detention order on November 14 1971 and was served the same day with the order as well as the grounds of detention together with vernacular translation thereof
On November 181971 the District Magistrate sent report to the State Government about the passing of the detention order along with the grounds of detention and other necessary particulars
The State Government considered the matter and approved the detention order on November 24 1971
Necessary report was also sent on that day by the State Government to the Central Government
On December 13 1971 the State Government placed the case of the petitioner before the Advisory Board
In the meanwhile on December 12 1971 the State Government received a representation of the petitioner
The representation was considered by the State Government and was rejected on January 11 1972
The representation was thereafter forwarded to the Advisory Board
The Board after considering the material placed before it including the petitioner s representation and after hearing the petitioner in person sent its report to the State Government on January 14 1972
Opinion was expressed by the Board that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner
On February 2 1972 the State Government confirmed the order for the detention of the petitioner
Communication about the confirmation of the order was thereafter sent to the petitioner
Affidavit of Shri B Mukhopadhya District Magistrate of 24 Parganas who passed the impugned order has been filed in opposition to the Petition
Mr Bagga has argued the case amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner while the State has been represented by Mr Chakravarti
548 It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the particular acts on account of which the order for the detention of the petitioner has been made were not germane to the maintenance of public order and as such the order for his detention could not be validly made for preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
In this respect we find that according to the grounds of detention the order for the petitioner s detention was made on the ground that he had been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as evidenced by the particulars given below taken separately or collectively That on 26 9 71 at about 1830 hours while Baidyanath Bandopadhya of Champapukur PS Basirhat District 24 Parganas along with his wife were travelling ill a 3rd class compartment of Up Basirhat local train from Barasat You along with your associates attacked him and his wife with open knives between Champapukur Rs and Basirhat RS and robbed them of Wrist Watch Gold Ornaments Cash valued at Rs 725 by putting them in fear of death
By your such activities you created terror and panic among the travelling passengers and public order was disturbed thereby
On 4 11 71
at about 2140 hours you and your associates armed with bombs daggers knives and iron rods etc
attacked police on the platform at Beliagliata railway station with a view to take their lives and to intimidate the public you charged two bombs which exploded with terrible sound endangering the on duty police
Your such action was so violent that it created panic and confusion among the passengers there then
YOU have thus action in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
 It would appear from the above that the petitioner and his associates attacked a husband and wife with open knives in the third class compartment of a running train and robbed them of valuable property including wrist watch gold ornaments and cash by putting them in fear of death
The grounds of detention further show that the above act of the petitioner and his associates created terror and panic among the travelling passengers and thereby disturbed public order
The second incident which took place at 940 pm on November 4 1971 related to the attack by the petitioner and his associates on a police party on the platform of Belighata railway station with a view to kill them
The petitioner and his associates are stated to have been then armed with bombs
daggers knives and iron rods and they exploded two bombs 549 with terrible sound
It is further stated that the above act of the petitioner and his associates created panic and confusion among the passengers and thus disturbed public order
Each one of the above two incidents of September 26 1971 and November 4 1971 in our opinion affected public order and not merely law and order
The distinction between the concept of public order and that of law and order has been adverted to by this Court in a number of cases
In the case of Dr Ram Manohar Lohia vs State of Bihar1 Hidayatullah J as he then was said that any contravention of law always affected order but before it could be said to affect public order it must affect the community at large
He considered three concepts law and order public order and the security of the State and observed that to appreciate the scope and extent of each one of them one should imagine the concentric circles
The largest of them represented law and order next represented public order and the smallest represented the security order just asan act might affect public order but not the security of the State
In the subsequent case of Arun Ghosh vs State of West Bengal 2 the Court dealt with the matter in the following words 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 effect upon the life of the community in a locality which determines whether thedisturbance amounts only to a breach of law and order
Take for instance a man stabs another
People may be shocked and even disturbed but the life of the community keeps moving at an even tempo however much one may dislike the act
Take another case of a town where there is communal tension
A man stabs a member of  the other community
This is an act of a very different sort
Its implications are deeper and it affects the even tempo of life and public order is jeopardized because the repercussions of the act embrace large sections of the community and incite them to make further breaches of the law and order and to subvert the public order
An Act by itself is not determinant of its own gravity
In its quality it may not differ from another but in its poten tiality it may be very different 11966 1 SCR 709 2 550 The question where 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
Public order is what the French call order publique and is something more than ordinary maintenance of law and order
The test to be adopted in determining whether an act affects law and order or public order as laid down in the above case is  Does it lead to disturbance of the current of 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  The principle enunciated above has been followed by this Court in the case of Nagendra Nath Mondal V State of West Bengal1 and Nandlal Roy Ca Nonda Dulal Roy  Pagla vs State of West Bengal WP No 15 of 1972 decided on March II 1972 In the light of what has been observed above we have no doubt that each one of the incidents of September 26 1971 and November 4 1971 was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
When two passengers are robbed at the point of knife while travelling in a third class compartment of a running train the act of the miscreants affects not only the passengers who are deprived of their valuables but also the other passengers who watch tile whole thing in fear as helpless spectators
There is bound to be consequent terror and panic amongst the travelling public
Like wise attack directed against a police party on the platform of railway station by exploring bombs is bound to create panic an
confusion among the passengers at the railway station
The act  in question in the very nature of things would adversely affect the even tempo of life of the community and cause a general disturbance of public tranquility
Reference has been made on behalf of the petitioner to the case of Sudhir Kumar Saha vs Commissioner of Police Calcutta  A nr
The petitioner in that case along with others committed various acts on three occasions
On the first occasion lie attached the people of a locality with a knife and by hurling bottles at them  On the other twooccasions he attacked the people of another locality by hurling bombs at them
It was held that the incidents were not interlinked and could not have prejudiced tile maintenance of public order
As against the above solitary decision Mr Chakravarti on behalf of the respondent State has referred to the principle laid down in the case of Arun Ghosh vs State of West Bengal supra as well as in the case of Nagendra Nath Mondal V State of West Bengal supra
Apart from those two cases we find that in the 2  1 1972 I SCR 498
551 case of Tapan Ku mat  Mukherjee and Ors
vs State of West Bengal1 the allegation against the detenu was that he along with other associates committed robbery in respect of a fat and a watch at the point of dagger in a running train and this created disturbance of public order
Contention was raised that the act of the detenu and his associates related only to law and order and not to public order
This contention was repelled and it was observed that the innocent passengers would be terror stricken by the acts of the detenu and his associates
Another incident which was referred to in that case related to throwing of bombs on a shop
The bombs exploded and as a result of the panic so caused in the locality all the shops and houses around the place were closed
The above round was held by this Court to be germane to the disturbance of public order
In case of Nandlal Roy supra the ground of detention recited that the detenu and his associates while committing theft of rice from a wagon threw bombs upon the members of the Railway Protection Force
One member of the Railway Protection Force was injured
The explosion of the bombs was stated to have created panic in the station area and the adjoining locality
It was held that the activity of the petitioner created not merely a question of the maintenance of law and order but created a disturbance which would be comprehended by the expression  order publique
The detention order was consequently upheld
In section K Kedar vs State of West Bengal WP No 35 of 1972 decided on May 2 1972 the allegation against the detenu was that he and his associates while removing railway material charged bombs and ballast upon RPF party as a consequence of which the members of RPF party fired in self defence
The activity of the petitioner was considered to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the detention order was upheld
The facts of the present case are much more akin to those of Tapan Kumar Mukherjee and Ors
vs State of West Bengal supra
The past activities of the petitioner as revealed in the grounds of detention in our opinion showed a propensity to disturb public order
The authority concerned in the circumstances could have validly made the order for the detention of the petitioner to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
The petition consequently fails and is dismissed
VPS Petition dismissed


Summary:
The petitioner and his associates attacked a husband and wife with open knives in the third class compartment of a running train and robbed them of valuable property by putting them in fear of death on one occasion and on another occasion attacked a police party on the platform of a railway station with bombs
dagger knives and iron rods and exploded bombs with a view to kill the police party
The petitioner was detained by an order under section 3 of the with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner Prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the grounds of detention were that the two incidents created terror and panic among passengers and disturbed public order
The petitioner challenged the order of detention in this Court
Dismissing the petition
HELD  Both the incidents referred to in the order affected public order and not merely law and order
550 E F The question whether a man only committed a breach of law and order or has act ad in a manner likely to cause disturbance of the public order is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the act upon the society
The test to be adopted in determining whether an act affects law and order or public order is  Does it lead to disturbance of the current of life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquillity of the society undisturbed  When two passengers are robbed at the point of knives while travelling in a third class compartment of a running train the act affects riot only the passengers who are deprived of their valuables but also the other passengers who are watching in fear as helpless spectators
Likewise the attack against the police party on the platform of a railway station by exploding bombs is bound to create panic and confusion among the passengers at the railway station
Consequently there is bound to be terror and panic amongst the travelling public
Therefore the acts in question in the very nature of things would adversely affect the even tempo of life of the community and cause a general disturbance of public tranquillity
550 A F Tapan Kumar Mukherjee and ors
vs State of West Bengal AIR 1972 SC 840 followed
Dr Ram Manohar Lohia vs State of Bihar 1966 1 SCR 709 Arun
Ghosh vs State of West Bengal 1970 3 SCR 288 Nagendra Nath Mondal vs State of West Bengal   Nandlal Roy  Nonda Dulal Roy  Pagla vs State of West Bengal WP No 15 of 1972 decided on March 11 1972
Sudhir Kumar Saha vs Commissioner of Police Calcutta and Anr  and section K Kader vs State of West Bengal WP 35 of 1967 decided on May 2 1972 referred to 547