tion Criminal No 403 of 1988
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India Dr YS Chitale Yatin N Oza PH Parekh and Sunil Dogra for the Petitioner
PG NO 1083 PS Poti Mrs H Wahi and MN Shroff for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT J
In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order of his detention dated August 3 1988 passed by the Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City under sub section 2 of section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti social Activities Act 1985 hereinafter referred to as the Act 
The grounds on which the impugned order of detention has been made run into seven pages
The relevant portions of which are extracted below In pursuance to Section 91 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti social Activities Act 1985 Shri Piyush Kantilal Shah is hereby informed the grounds of detention as under You are indulging into anti social activities by hoarding illegal foreign liquor and also selling it through yourself and through your servants near Navrangpura Municipal Bus stand and Navrang High School Ahmedabad that the cases have been registered against you under Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 and in which you have been arrested
Police Stn
CR Sections Qty
seized Result No No 1
Navrangpura 6288 Prohibition 21795 Pending
Navrangpura 11488 Act 66b ML Ltr
Pending 65a foreign investi e 81 Liquor
gation Proh
Act 139750 66b Ml
65ae foreign 116b and liquor
Carefully considering the complaint identification marks on your face and charge sheet it appears that you are a prohibition bootlegger and you are indulging into sale of foreign liquor in the aforesaid areas and you continue your anti social activities
In the aforesaid area you your servants and associates indulge into use of force and violence and also beat innocent citizens by which an atmosphere of fear is created and by indulging into such PG NO 1084 activities you are causing hindrance to maintenance of public order
You also show dangerous weapons to the citizens and also create an atmosphere of fear and you are carrying on illegal liquor business
Because of your fear citizens residing nearby are not in a position to speak anything against you and also do not file complaint against you
Because of your activities and your associates the people of the aforesaid area feel insecurity of their life and property and all these activities are causing hindrance to public order
To substantiate that you are indulging into anti social activities and that your activities are against the public order certain persons residing in the aforesaid area who are peace loving have also given statements and the copy of the aforesaid statements are given to you
Taking into consideration all that has been stated aforesaid I am fully satisfied that you are prohibition bootlegger and by indulging into use of force and violence you continue to indulge into illegal sale of liquor and you create an atmosphere of fear and terror by beating innocent citizens
That action against you has been taken under ordinary law and you have been released on bail
After being released on bail you have continued your illegal anti social activities and therefore if once again actions are taken under ordinary law against you there are possibilities of your being released on bail and your continuing anti social activities and since it is necessary to prevent you immediately for maintenance of public order and since there is no other alternative as a last resort I order to detain you under the aforesaid Act
 It appears from the grounds extracted above and it is also not disputed that the petitioner has been prosecuted in two criminal cases
In FIR relating to case No 6288 the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is that he was caught red handed possessing English wines with foreign marks without any legal pass or permission to do so on April 13 1988
In the second case being case No 11488 the offence as alleged to have been committed by the PG NO 1085 petitioner and as recorded in the FIR is that he was caught while shifting 296 bottles of foreign liquors in an Ambassador car without any pass permit or licence
It is not disputed that in one of these two cases the petitioner has been acquitted and the other is pending but the petitioner has not been convicted by any court
In the grounds of detention it is alleged that the petitioner is a prohibition bootlegger and that by indulging in use of force and violence and by illegal sale of liquor the petitioner creates an atmosphere of fear and terror by beating innocent citizens
It is also alleged that the petitioner is indulging in anti social activities and that the activities are against public order
The statements of five persons who have been described as witnesses Nos 1 to 5 have been recorded before the order of detention was passed
The copies of their statements have been given to the petitioner but their names have not been disclosed to the petitioner and it is not disputed before us that in view of section 92 of the Act the detaining authority is entitled not to disclose the names of the detenu
At this stage it may be stated that the representation of the petitioner is pending before the Advisory Board
The question that has been raised on behalf of the respondents is whether in view of the pendency of the representation before the Advisory Board the writ petition is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution
The question need not detain us long for it has already been decided by this Court in Prabhu Dayal Deorah vs The District Magistrate Kamrup  In paragraph 16 of the Report Mathew J speaking for himself and Mukherjee J observed inter alia as follows We think that the fact that the Advisory Board would have to consider the representations of the petitioners where they have also raised the contention that the grounds are vague would not in any way prevent this Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution
The detenu has a right under Article 225 of the Constitution to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention
That constitutional right includes within its compass the right to be furnished with adequate particulars of the grounds of the detention order
And if their constitutional right is violated they have every right to come to this Court under PG NO 1086 Article 32 complaining that their detention is bad as violating their fundamental right
As to what the Advisory Board might do in the exercise of its jurisdiction is not the concern of this Court
 In the above observation this Court has specifically laid down that even though a representation is pending before the Advisory Board the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable before this Court
In the Circumstances we may proceed to dispose of the writ petition on merits
In the detention order the petitioner has been named as Piyush Kantilal Shah
According to the petitioner he is Piyush Kantilal Mehta and not Piyush Kantilal Shah
It is alleged by the petitioner that the detaining authority has deliberately and mala fide detained him with a view to saving one Piyush Kantilal Shah
In order to substantiate that his name is not Piyush Kantilal Shah but Piyush Kantilal Mehta the petitioner has filed certain Income Tax Challans returns a driving licence and some other documents wherein his name appears as Piyush Kantilal Mehta
it is submitted by the petitioner that as he has been deliberately and wrongly described as Piyush Kantilal Shah in the order of detention the same is illegal and should be quashed on this ground alone
In his counter affidavit the Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City who is the detaining authority has averred that the petitioner has made false attempts to show that he is not Piyush Kantilal Shah but Piyush Kantilal Mehta
It is pointed out that even at the time of the service of the order of detention the petitioner had himself signed as Piyush Kantilal Shah in the presence of the Police Inspector Navrangpura Police Station Ahmedabad City
It is submitted that the petitioner is trying to mislead this Court by making a false attempt of changing his surname
We do not find any reason why we should not accept the statement of the Commissioner of Police as made in his affidavit
It is not disputed that the petitioner has signed his name as Piyush Kantilal Shah when the order of detention was served upon him
It is however alleged by the petitioner that he was forced to sign as Piyush Kantilal Shah
It is difficult for us to believe that the detaining authority will force the petitioner to sign his name as Piyush Kantilal Shah if really his name is Piyush Kantilal Mehta
It may be that he has another name as Piyush Kantilal Mehta but we are satisfied that the petitioner is also known as Piyush Kantilal Shah inasmuch as he himself had signed his name as Piyush Kantilal Shah
PG NO
1087 In the grounds of detention the relevant portions of which have been extracted above it has been alleged that the petitioner is a prohibition bootlegger and indulged in the sale of foreign liquor in the area in question and continues his anti social activities
A bootlegger has been defined in section 2b of the Act as follows 2b
bootlegger  means a person who distills manufactures stores transports imports exports sells or distributes any liquor intoxicating drug or other intoxicant in contravention of any provision of the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 and the rules and orders made thereunder or of any other law for the time being in force or who knowingly expends or applies any money or supplies any animal vehicle vessel or other conveyance or any receptacle or any other material whatsoever in furtherance or support of the doing of any of the things described above by or through any other person or who abets in any other manner the doing of any such thing
 Now we may refer to section 3 of the Act providing for making orders detaining certain persons
Section 3 reads as follows 3
1 The State Government may if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it is necessary so to do make an order directing that such person be detained
2 If having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do it may by order in writting direct that the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police may also if satisfied as provided in sub section 1 exercise the powers conferred by the said sub section
3 When any order is made under this section by an authorised officer he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as in his opinion have a bearing on the matter and no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the PG NO 1088 making thereof unless in the meantime it has been approved by the State Government
4 For the purpose of this section a person shall be deemed to be acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order when such person is engaged in or is making preparation for engaging in any activities whether as a bootlegger or dangerous person or drug offender or immoral traffic offender or property grabber which affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order
Explanation
For the purpose of this sub section 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 person referred to in this sub section directly or indirectly is causing or is likely to cause any harm danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life property or public health Under sub section 1 of section 3 an order of detention of a person can be passed with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
Sub section 4 of section 3 contains a deeming provision
Under sub section 4 a bootlegger or a dangerous person or a drug offender shall be deemed to be acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order when the activities of such a person affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order
In other words although sub section 4 contains a deeming provision such deeming provision will not be attracted unless the activities of the person concerned affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order
It is urged by Dr Chitale learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the grounds of detention are vague and there is nothing to show that the activities of the petitioner either affect or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order
The learned Counsel submits that it is not enough to allege that the petitioner is a bootlegger but there must be sufficient materials to show that the activities of the petitioner affect or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order
PG NO 1089 In the grounds of detention two criminal cases have been mentioned
It is not disputed that in one of them the petitioner has been acquitted
In the FIR relating to case No 6288 the allegations against the petitioner are that he was caught red handed with English Wines with foreign marks without any legal pass or permission
In the FIR of the other case being Case No 14488 the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner was that the petitioner was caught while travelling in an Ambassador car with 296 bottles containing foreign liquor without any pass permit or licence
These cases have been mentioned in the detention order presumably with a view to substantiating the allegation that the petitioner is a bootlegger
There can be no doubt that the offences that have been alleged to have been committed by the petitioner have no bearing on the question of maintenance of public order
It is also alleged in the grounds of detention that the petitioner his servants and associates indulge in the use of force and violence and also beat innocent citizens by which an atmosphere of fear is created and by indulging in such activities the petitioner is causing hindrance to the maintenance of public order
It is further alleged that the petitioner shows dangerous weapons to the citizens and thereby create an atmosphere of fear
These allegations are very general in character without reference to any particular incident or incidents in support of such allegations
The detaining authority has sought to substantiate the said allegations and connect the activities of the petitioner with the question of maintenance of public order by the statements of five witnesses
Apart from some minor incidents of beating by the petitioner the witnesses have alleged that the petitioner is high handed and fierce by nature his high handedness and bickering nature have caused terror to the public of the area he is not afraid of the policy his activities are anti social he always keeps with him a knife and a revolver and he threatens surrounding people
It is submitted by Dr Chitale that the allegations which have been made by the said five witnesses against the petitioner are also very general in character and do not involve the question of public order
Counsel submits that there is a distinction between law and order  and public order 
The allegations made against the petitioner may give rise to a question of law and order but surely they have nothing to do with the question of public order
A person may be very fierce by nature but so long as the public generally are not affected by his activities or conduct the question of maintenance of public order will not arise
In order that an activity may be said to affect adversely the PG NO 1090 maintenance of public order there must be materials to show that there has been a feeling of insecurity among the general public
If any act of a person creates panic or fear in the minds of the members of the public upsetting the even tempo of life of the community such act must be said to have a direct bearing on the question of maintenance of public order
The commission of an offence will not necessarily come within the purview of public order 
In this connection we may refer to a decision of this Court in Pushkar Mukherjee vs State of West Bengal  where the distinction between law and order  and public order  has been clearly laid down
Ramaswami J speaking for the Court observed as follows Does the expression public order  take in every kind of infraction of order or only some categories thereof It is manifest that every act of assault or injury to specific persons does not lead to public disorder
When two people quarrel and fight and assault each other inside a house or in a street it may be said that there is disorder but not public disorder
Such cases are dealt with under the powers vested in the executive authorities under the provisions of ordinary criminal law but the culprits cannot be detained on the ground that they were disturbing public order
The contravention of any law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order it must affect the community or the public at large
In this connection we must draw a line of demarcation between serious and aggravated forms of disorder which directly affect the community or injure the public interest and the relatively minor breaches of peace of a purely local significance which primarily injure specific individuals and only in a secondary sense public interest
A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act but a disturbance which will affect public order comes within the scope of the Act
 In the instant case the detaining authority in our opinion has failed to substantiate that the alleged anti social activities of the petitioner adversely affect or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order
It is true some incidents of beating by the petitioner had taken place as alleged by the witnesses
But such PG NO 1091 incidents in our view do not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order
The petitioner may be punished for the alleged offences committed by him but surely the acts constituting the offences cannot be said to have affected the even tempo of the life of the community
It may be that the petitioner is a bootlegger within the meaning of section 2b of the Act but merely because he is a bootlegger he cannot be preventively detained under the provisions of the Act unless as laid down in sub section 4 of section 3 of the Act his activities as a bootlegger affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order We have carefully considered the offences alleged against the petitioner in the order of detention and also the allegations made by the witnesses and in our opinion these offences or the allegations cannot be said to have created any feeling of insecurity or panic or terror among the members of the public of the area in question giving rise to the question of maintenance of public order
The order of detention cannot therefore be upheld
Coming back to the question of vagueness of the grounds it is submitted by Mr Poti learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the grounds are not vague and that they are supported by the statements of the witnesses
In our opinion the statements of the witnesses are themselves vague and general in character
In Pushkar Mukherjee s case supra one of the grounds was You have become a menace to the society and there have been disturbances and confusion in the lives of peaceful citizens of Baraset and Khardah PS areas under 24 Paraganas District and the inhabitants thereof are in constant dread or disturbances of public order
It was held by this Court that the ground was extremely vague and gave no particulars to enable the petitioners to make an adequate representation against the order of detention and it infringed the Constitutional safeguard provided under Article 225 of the Constitution of India
In the instant case the grounds of detention are more or less similar to the grounds in Pushkar Mukherjee s case supra
The statements of witnesses do not in our opinion remove the vagueness of the grounds
Some other grounds have been urged by Dr Chitale with a view to substantiating the invalidity of the order of detention
As we have found that the order of detention cannot be sustained as the grounds of detention suffer from vagueness and the allegations against the petitioner are not such as to raise the question of maintenance of public order we do not think it necessary to consider the other grounds
PG NO
1092 For the reasons aforesaid we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released forthwith
SKA Petition allowed


Summary:
The respondent was a permanent and confirmed civilian worker in the Defence Department and he had a right to continue till he attained the age of 60 years
His services however were terminated under Article 310 of the Constitution without assigning any reason
He instituted a suit for declaration that the termination of his services was illegal and void ab initio
In the alternative he claimed damages or compensation for the illegal termination
The Trial Court awarded him Rs 25000 as damages together with interest at 6 per cent per annum for the illegal termination of his services
That decree was confirmed by the High Court
The Courts below have proceeded on the basis that Article 311 2 of the Constitution was not applicable to the respondent but the Central Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules 1965 were however applicable
In the appeal to this Court on behalf of the appellants it was contended that the reasoning of the Courts below is untenable and uncalled for
On behalf of the respondent employee it was contended that the 1965 Rules are applicable to the respondent and that the decree under appeal should not be set aside
The poverty of the respondent and the long drawn litigation by which the respondent was suffered immeasurably were also highlighted
PG NO 1074 PG NO 1075 Allowing the appeal on a question of law this Court HELD 1
The respondent is not entitled to protection of Article 3112 since he occupied the post drawing his salary from the Defence Estimates
That being the position the exclusionary effect of Article 3112 deprives him the protection which he is otherwise entitled to
In other words there is no fetter in the exercise of the pleasure of the President or the Governor
1079D E 2
The 1965 Rules among others provide procedure for imposing the three major penalties that are set out under Article 3112
When Article 3112 itself stands excluded and the protection thereunder is withdrawn there is little that one could do under the 1965 Rules in favour of the respondent
The said Rules cannot independently play any part since the rule making power under Article 309 is subject to Article 311
1079F G LR Khurana vs Union of India  at 911 Ramanatha Pillai vs The State of Kerala  at 521 and Union of India vs Tulsi Ram   followed
This Court will not deny any equitable relief in deserving cases
The case on hand cannot be an exception to that rule and indeed
it is eminently a fit case
1080F