K. Lahiri, J.
1. The habeas corpus petition must be allowed on the score that Grounds Nos. 1, 4, 8 and 13 have no rational connection with the purposes of detention, namely, maintenance of public order or maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. We quote the said grounds:
1. On August 12, 1980 you attended a closed door meeting on the Tinsukia Unit of AASU held at Bipin Bora High School with Shri Ajit Hazarika in the chair. You along with Sarvashri Buddha Ranjan Bora, Purna Das, Tarun Gogoi and few others decided to work against opening of schools at Tinsukia from August, 1980.
4. On August 25, 1980 you attended Executive Committee meeting of Dibrugarh District Students Union held at Digboi College. You were suspended from the Students Union for assaulting and garlanding with shoes Shri Samsher Singh, Treasurer, Tinsukia Unit of AASU. Being enraged at the decision of the Executive Committee you left the meeting and re-entered Digboi College Campus with two car loads of unruly elements and while trying to assault the members of the Executive Committee attending the discussion you caused damage to the College building.
8. On November 15, 1980 at 6 P. M. you led about twelve boys to the shop-cum-residence of Sangilal Agarwalla and realised Rs. 51/- under threat and intimidation and you were arrested by Tinsukia Police Under Section 143/384/506, IPC
13. On February 12 and 13, 1980 you personally contacted the General Secretaries of Schools and Colleges of Tinsukia to enlist their support to observe Tinsukia Bundh in protest against alleged police assault on Shri Anil Baruah on February 6, 1980. You issued a printed leaflet demanding suspension of O.C. Tinsukia P.S. which created lack of confidence in the minds of the people in general on the Police at Tinsukia.
2. Ground No. 1 has no connection even with law and order. However, Ground No. 4 can be a ground for detention to prevent a person for law and order provided law and order would have been one of the purposes of detention under the preventive detention law. Ground No. 8 is an individual act said to have been committed by the detenu to an individual. It does not touch the fringe of 'public order'. Similarly, Ground No. 13 cannot be a relevant consideration for detaining the petitioner for either of the purposes referred in the detention order. So almost l/3rd of the grounds fail. It has been ruled by the Supreme Court that if one of the grounds is irrelevant the order of detention cannot be sustained.
3. In the result, we declare the order of detention to be void and invalid and the continuous detention of the petitioner is hereby declared invalid. The petition is allowed and we direct that the detenu be released forthwith unless he is wanted in connection with any other case.