Nanha Pahalwan vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Counsel.

The petitioner is challenging the impugned detention order dated 20-11-2000 under the N.S.A. (Annexure 3 to the writ petition). Several arguments have been raised before us but in our opinion one argument is itself suijficient for this petition to succeed, that is, that it is a case of breach of law and order and not public order. A perusal of the grounds of detention (Annexure 4 to the petition) shows that the dead body of one Pintoo was found and a case u/s 302 was registered It is very significant that the petitioner was not named in the FIR (copy of which is Annexure 1). The distinction between law and order and public order is well known as it has been discussed in a large number of cases decided by the Supreme Court and this Court. It is well settled that a detention order can be passed not for breach of law and order but for the breach of public order vide State of U.P. Vs. Hari Shankar Tewari, . In the present case we are of the opinion that there was breach of law and order but not of public order. No doubt that the grounds of detention mention that public order was breached, but we have not to go merely by what the authorities say, otherwise in every case the authorities can say that there was breach of public order and that will be the end of the matter. The Court has to make its own determination as to whether there was breach of public order.

In view of the above the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20-11-2000 is quashed. The petitioner shall be released forthwith unless he is required in some other preventive detention or criminal case.