tion Criminal No 296 of 1989
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
UR Lalit Mrs Rani Chhabra and Ms Meera Chhiba for the Petitioner
B Dutta Additional Solicitor General Yogeshwar Pd Ms Sucharita Ms A Subhashini Dalveer Bhandari Ms Rachna Joshi and Rachna Gupta for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT J
In this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India the mother of the detenu Shri Pra veen Kumar Gupta has prayed for the quashing of the deten tion order of her son dated May 6 1989 passed under sub section 2 read with sub section 3 of section 3 of the  as confirmed by the order dated May 11 1989 of the State of UP on the report of the Advisory Board
There is also a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing the respondents to release the said Praveen Kumar Gupta forthwith
The grounds of detention as communicated to the detenu by the District Magistrate Meerut are as follows 243 That on 30489 at about 915 PM at Delhi Road Kesarganj PS Delhi Gate Meerut you along with your other accomplice with the common intention to kill Babli showing your wrath gave him a gun injury and also threat ened to give gun shot to those persons who came in his rescue
On the basis of informa tion given by Mohd Bhura a Crime Case No 12 1 was registered against you us 307 IPC in PS Delhi Gate Meerut which is pending
By your above misdeed fear and terror was spread in the hearts of public in the markets Mela Manchandi and in the city of Meerut
Thus you have committed an act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
You are at present in jail and are trying to be released on bail and there is every possibility of releasing you on bail
On the basis of above grounds and reasons 1 am satisfied that you are likely to indulge in the activities prejudicial to the public order and public life and with a view to prevent you from acting in any manner prejudicial to the public order and public life it has become necessary to detain you
 It is apparent from the grounds of detention that a crime case was registered against him under section 307 IPC and he was arrested and detained in jail
Along with the grounds of detention a copy of the report of the Inspector in Charge PS Delhi Gate Meerut was also supplied to the detenu in jail
The relevant por tion of the report is extracted below On 30489 at busy road Delhi Road at about 2115 PM he without any reasons gave a gun shot to one Babli So Sh
Bhura Ro Mohalla Purwa Hamidnagar who had come for reading Namaz as a result of which he was seriously injured
At present he is in serious condition in the hospital
This site is the most sensi tive area of the city for communal point of view
On receiving the information of the gun injury to Babli by the Muslim community on the pious occasion of Ramzan there spread great excitement
Thousands of people from community gathered
There was 244 an apprehension of communal threat in the city and area
People closed their shops feeling threat of communal riots and the road became quiet due to fear and terror
Above all on receiving the news of this incident the people of famous Manchandi Mela started running to their houses
This news of fear and terror created due to this incident was also pub lished in the newspaper Amar Ujala on 1589
Bhura So Dilsad Ro 29 Purwa Hamid Hussain got lodged one report in the Police Station Delhi Gate and a Crime Case No 12 1 of 89 under section 307 IPC is pending consid eration
Praveen Kumar is in jail for commission of this offence
Praveen Kumar has given application for bail in the above matter and there is every possibility of his release on bail
He is a man of strong means
After release on bail he would again commit such serious act which would be prejudicial to communal harmony and cause adverse reaction in general public especially in Muslim community
Therefore the detention under Na tional Security Act is recommended to above Praveen
 At this stage it may be mentioned that the detenu has since been granted bail but in view of the order of deten tion he is not released
Mr Lalit learned Counsel appear ing on behalf of the petitioner has strongly urged that as the grounds of detention does not disclose any past history of commission of any crime by the detenu and the incident that has been referred to in the grounds being the solitary incident and there having been no materials on record to show that such an incident would be repeated in future the order of detention is illegal and should be quashed
Counsel submits that the only ground on which the detaining authori ty had placedreliance for making the order of detention was that there was a chance of the detenu being released on bail by the criminal court and in that event it was appre hended that he would act prejudicially to the interest of public order
It is submitted that such apprehension is not supported by any material on record and accordingly the detention order should be quashed
In support of the above contention learned Counsel has placed much reliance upon a decision of this Court in Smt
Shashi Aggarwal vs State of UP and others  In that case this Court observed as follows 245 Every citizen in this country has the right to have recourse to law
He has the right to move the court for bail when he is arrested under the ordinary law of the land
If the State thinks that he does not deserve bail the State could oppose the grant of bail
He cannot however be interdicted from moving the court for bail by clamping an order of detention
The possibility of the court grant ing bail may not be sufficient
Nor a bald statement that the person would repeat his criminal activities would be enough
There must also be credible information or cogent reasons apparent on the record that the dete nu if enlarged on bail would act prejudi cially to the interest of public order
 In laying down the above proposition of law this Court has placed reliance upon its two earlier decisions in Alijan Mian vs District Magistrate Dhanbad  and in Ramesh Yadav vs District Magistrate Etah It is true that the incident on April 13 1989 was a solitary one so far as the detenu was concerned but the question is whether the incident had prejudicially affected the public order
In other words whether it had affected the even tempo of life of the community
As observed in Alijan Mian s case supra it is for the detaining authori ty to have the subjective satisfaction about the apprehen sion of the breach of the public order and that even one incident may be sufficient to satisfy the detaining authori ty in that regard depending upon the nature of the incident
It is not disputed by Mr Lalit that a single incident may disturb the tranquility and the even tempo of life of the community
In the grounds of detention it has been stated By your above misdeed fear and terror was spread in the hearts of public in the markets Mela Manchandi and in the city of Meerut
Thus you have committed an act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
 This is not a mere bald statement of the detaining authority without any material in support of the same
We have already extracted above the report of the Inspector in Charge PS Delhi Gate Meerut which has been taken into account by the detaining authority at the time he passed the order of detention
It has been already noticed that a copy of the said report was served on the detenu along with the grounds of detention
A situation that emerged as a result of the incident as stated in the said report was grave and serious and prejudicially affect ed public order
It may be a solitary incident but it gave 256 rise to communal tension and there was apprehension of a communal riot as alleged in the report
The report in our opinion is a sufficient material for the subjective satis faction of the detaining authority that there was disturb ance of tranquility and harmony of public life
It is not correct to say that there is no material for the apprehension that if released on bail the detenu will indulge in such criminal acts affecting public order
Real ly the detaining authority had taken into consideration all the circumstances including the grave and serious situation that emerged as a result of the incident
In our opinion when an incident was such that it created communal tension and the authorities were apprehensive of the breaking of a communal riot such incident in itself may be sufficient and may afford justification for the satisfaction of the detain ing authority for the detention of the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in such activity prejudicial to public order even though as submitted by the learned Coun sel there is no antecedent acts of similar nature or past history of commission of crime by the detenu
In this con nection we may refer to a recent decision of this Court in Ayya vs State of UP and Another  In that case this Court observed as follows Even a single instance of activity tending to harm public order might in the circum stances of its commission reasonably supply justification for the satisfaction as to a legislative apprehension of a future repeti tion of similar activity to the detriment of public order
 The above observation fully supports the view we have taken
In our opinion there were cogent reasons apparent on the face of the record justifying the order of detention
In the circumstances we are of the view that the deten tion of the petitioner was justified
The rule nisi is dis charged and the writ petition is dismissed
NPV Petition dis missed


Summary:
These two appeals were preferred against the decision of the Nagpur High Court in an appeal under section 191f of the Defence of India Act 1939 modifying an award of compensation made 1178 under section 19ib of that Act in respect of certain premises requisitioned by the Government under 75A of the Rules framed under the Act
Both the parties applied for and obtained leave to appeal to the Federal Court under sections 109 and 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure
A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the Government that the decision of the High Court was an award and not a judgment decree or order within the meaning of sections 109 and 110 of the Code and as such no appeal lay therefrom  Held that the objection must prevail and both the appeals stand dismissed
There could be no doubt that an appeal to the High Court under section 191f Of the Defence of India Act from an award made under section 19ib of that Act was essentially an arbitration proceeding and as such the decision in such appeal cold not be a judgment decree or order either under the Code of civil procedure or under Cl 29 Of the Letters patent of the Nagpur High Court
Kollegal Silk Filatures Ltd vs province of Madyas I I
R  approved
There is a well recognised distinction between a decision given by the Court in a case which it hears on merits and one given by it in a proceeding for the filing of an award
The former is a judgment decree or order of the Court appellable under the general law while the latter is an adjudication of a private individual with the sanction of the Court stamped on it and where it does not exceed the terms of the reference it is final and not appealable
There can be no difference in law between an arbitaration by agreement of parties and one under a statute
A referrence to arbitration under a statute to a court may be to it either as a court or as an arbitrator
If it is to it as a court the decision is a judgment decree or order appealable under the ordinary law unless the statute provides otherwise while in the latter case the Court functions as a persona designata and its decision is air award not appealable under the ordinary law but only under the statute and to the extent provided by it
An appeal being essentially a continuation of the original proceedings what as at its inception an arbitration proceeding must retain its character as an arbitration proceeding even where the statute provides for an appeal Rangoon Botatung Company vs The Collecter  Rangoon 1912 LR 39 IA 197 The special officer sales the building sites Dassabhai Beznoji Bom 506 the special officer sales the Building sites vs Dassabhai Bozanji Motiwala Manavikram Tirumalpad vs the Collector of the Nilagrie Mad 943 and secretary of state for India in council vs Hindustan Co operative Insurance society Limited 1931 LR 58 I A 259 relied on
National Telephone Company Limited vs Postmaster General  explained