The case was regarding a detention order passed by the State Government under the National Security Act, 1980 where the petitioner alleged the order as illegal and non-existent. He further contended that the impugned order is based upon political influence and personal satisfaction of the detaining authority and hence impaired the legal validity of the same.

The court opined that,

" For an act to fall within the category of public order problem, it should be of a nature to disrupt the ordinary tempo of public life. Also, it should be beyond the capability of ordinary law to deal with the alleged activities; in other words, if recourse to ordinary criminal law could have efficaciously dealt with the alleged activities the need to take recourse to preventive detention law does not arise. The facts and circumstances of the present case, especially, the changed version of the detaining authorities fall to establish that the alleged act was one threatening public order."

The court also relied on the case Pebam Ningol v. State of Manipur & Ors., where the apex court held that if one of the grounds are non-existent, misconceived or irrelevant in a detention order under the National Securities Act, it will be invalid.

The court observed that it was clearly seen in the detention order that it was based upon false facts and also that the preventive detention is an encroachment upon the personal liberty of an individual.

While saying that the possibility of political influence leading to the passing of the impugned detention order cannot be ruled out, the court also observed that the order shows no application of mind by the detaining authority and that the said authority has acted merely on the basis of the reports of the Sponsoring Authority, wherein the petitioner was referred as a hardened criminal and a mining mafia having a gang, which is irrelevant and non- existent beyond doubt.

The court further added that the petitioner is a businessman and has never been booked under the Gangsters (Anti Social Activities) Act.

Subsequently, the court allowed the petition and also quashed the impugned detention order