Judgment ANAND PRASAD SINHA, J. 1. This application is directed against the order dt. 30-8-1983 passed by the District Magistrate, Begusarai, (Annexure-3) by which the petitioner has been detained under the provisions of sub-sec.(2) of S.12 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). 2. The impugned order was referred to the State Government and the same has been confirmed by an order dt. 6th Sept. 1983 (Annexure-4). 3. The grounds leading to the impugned order, which is under challenge, had been annexed with the order and has been served upon the petitioner, who is presently detained in Begusarai Jail. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that, as a matter of fact, the cases relied upon for basing the order of detention relate to such incidents which are non est or in other words stale. 5. I do not find any merit in this contention. It appears that the two incidents of 22-9-1979 and 28-6-1980 along with other incident of 17-7-1983 have been mentioned in the grounds. The petitioner equipped with fire arms has been committing overt acts and, as a matter of fact, in one case he had shot dead one Sursekhar Singh. 6. As a matter of fact, the incidents of 22-9-79 and 28-6-1980 are indicative of such conducts of the petitioner which, read in the background of the incident of 17-7-1983, will establish that the petitioner has been regularly indulging in hard and violent activities leading to serious offences, resulting into fear and terror thus disturbing the public order. 7. The incident dt. 17-7-1983 relates to his conduct by which, on the national highway, the petitioner along with several others differently armed with fire arms had, held up a public vehicle and the driver was also fired at. The purpose was to commit major offences which will be indicative from the description of the overt acts having been committed. A regular case was registered being Mufassil P.S. Case No. 138 (7) 83 under Ss.144/307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and during investigation it transpired that the petitioner had participated in that occurrence. 8. A regular case was registered being Mufassil P.S. Case No. 138 (7) 83 under Ss.144/307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and during investigation it transpired that the petitioner had participated in that occurrence. 8. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case it will appear that reliance has not been placed upon such case which can be termed stale or non est, but, as a matter of fact, very recent overt acts involving the petitioner and this has been made the basis for passing the order of detention. 9. The another contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the incident relied upon by the authorities relates to an overt act which can be termed a question of law and order and not public order. 10. I am unable to agree with this contention even. Law pre-supposes organised society. Law and order serving as levers maintain organized purposes of society. It is the continuous latent and important function of public administration to resist breach of such law and conform to order. Law and order is equated with disciplined pattern of behaviour and any conduct contrary to such rule or regulation is against the mandate of administrative law which is simply confined to the problem of law and order. Public order relates to maintenance of such conduct, the breach of which has serious repercussions, creating a problem of insecurity of life and property, of public at large. The disturbances so caused in the social order by such misconduct is exceedingly excessive, perpetual danger to life and property quite distinct from the problem of maintenance of minimum stability and order. Public order aims at keeping wider range of safety, peace, order, social solidarity, States stability and general security. Thus a distinction between law and order, and Public order is mans conduct which concerns only himself and that which concerns others which the law might not regulate. 11. In the instant case the petitioner had indulged into violent and serious overt act which had been committed, on the national highway, by intercepting a public bus along with several others and all were armed with deadly weapons. Such overt act had given rise to a sense of intense fear and insecurity, thus extensively affecting the public at large and that has an impact on Public Order. 12. No other points have been raised. 13. Such overt act had given rise to a sense of intense fear and insecurity, thus extensively affecting the public at large and that has an impact on Public Order. 12. No other points have been raised. 13. Under the circumstances, the impugned order of detention does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. In the result, the application fails and is dismissed. LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, J. 14 I agree.