JUDGMENT I.P. Singh, J. - Vikram Pratap Singh petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the detenu has filed this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the validity and legality of the detention order dated 11-21-85, passed by the District Magistrate, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the detaining authority) with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 2. The said detention order was served on the detenu the same day in the District Jail, Varanasi. The ground of detention was also served simultaneously. That contains only one ground which translated in English reads as follows: On 10-10-1984 Sri O.P. Gupta, Divisional Engineer M.I. North Eastern, Railway Varanasi (mentioned in the petition as the D.E.M.I. N.E.R.) arrived at Railway Station, Varanasi Cantt. from Gorakhpur on official duty in his saloon; he got down at T.T. gate. Outside the T.T. gate, his Government jeep was waiting for him to take him to his residence. He was about to board the jeep at about 2.30 a.m. that the detenu pushed him and fired with his licensed revolver at him and ran away. Sri O.P. Gupta was instantly removed to the Railway Hospital where he died. This incident was registered as Crime Case No. 322 of 1984, under section 302 I.P.C. 3-4. It was further alleged that at T. T. gate of Varanasi Cantt. Railway Station, passengers keep on coming and going throughout the night. The detenu's said activity of opening fire with the revolver at a high Railway Officer created a sense of fear, awe and terror in the locality which was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 5. Learned counsel for the detenu has challenged the detention order on the ground that the said incident relates to 'law and order' and did not have the potentiality of disturbing the 'public order'. 6. The law on the point is well settled that there is no formula by which one case can be distinguished from another in discriminating law and order from' public order'. The act by itself is not the determinant of its gravity; it is its potentiality and its reach upon the society that matters. 6. The law on the point is well settled that there is no formula by which one case can be distinguished from another in discriminating law and order from' public order'. The act by itself is not the determinant of its gravity; it is its potentiality and its reach upon the society that matters. It is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular eruption of disorder that helps distinguish it as an act affecting 'public order' from that concerning' law and order.' It is the potentiality of the act to disturb even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public order'. The impact of the detenu's activities upon the local community is to be seen as to whether it has the effect on the normal flow of life of the community in the locality. It is the degree of disturbance and its effect upon the life of the community in a locality which determinates whether the disturbance amounts only to a breach of 'law and order' or 'public order'. 7. In the instant case the detenu who was a Railway contractor had fired at a high officer of the Railway just outside the Railway Station when he was about to enter his jeep to go to his residence, in front of the T.T. gate which was frequented by the passengers. In our view, this incident had in it the potentiality of disturbing even tempo of life and normal flow of life of the community in the locality. It had the potentiality of sending a terror wave in the locality affecting the passengers or those visiting the Railway Station. It had sufficient reach on the society to dislocate its normal flow of fife. The said activity of the detenu was certainly prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public order'. The detention order in question, therefore, could be passed by the detaining authority under section 3(2) of the Act, and his subjective satisfaction is not vitiated. 8. In forming subjective satisfaction in the matter, the detaining authority had before him a number of documents, the copies of which were supplied to the detenu along with the grounds of detention and the same were detailed at the foot of the grounds of detention from serial Nos. 2 to 14. These documents were:- 1. Report of the S.S.P. Varanasi dated 31-1-1985. 2. 2 to 14. These documents were:- 1. Report of the S.S.P. Varanasi dated 31-1-1985. 2. Report of S.O., Sigma dated 30-1-1985. 3. Copy of F.I.R. No. 900 of 1984 Crime Case No. 322 of 1985 (correct number is 322 of 1984. vide annexure 3 to the writ petition). 4. Copy of statement under section 161 Cr. P.C. 5. Copy of statement of Sahdeo (witness). 6. Copy of statement of Parasnath Chaube (witness). 7. Copy of statement of N. K. Chakravarty (witness). 8. Copy of statement of Sri Ram (witness). 9. Copy of statement of P. Swaroop. 10. Copy of statement of G. P. Saxena (witness). 11. Copy of Intikhab of Parcha No. 6. 12. Photostat copy of paper cutting and 13. Paper cutting of investigation report. 9. Learned counsel for the detenu has pointed out that in the FIR of Crime Case No. 322 of 1984 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition), the detenu was not named as the accused. It is further pointed out that the accused was put up for identification, vide photostat copy of identification memo (annexure 4 to the writ petition) in which two witnesses who were required to identify the detenu had not picked him up and stated that they had not seen the accused (detenu) nor could they identify him. It is argued that the said identification memo dated 7-2-1984 which was a material document was not placed before the detaining authority and, as such, his subjective satisfaction was vitiated and that rendered the detention order illegal. 10. However, the detaining authority in paragraph 4 of counter-affidavit has stated : "........The proposal to detain the petitioner was forwarded by the Senior Superintendent of Police on 31-1-1985. The police report with the letter of the Senior Superintendent of Police indicated that the petitioner was likely to be released from Jail after obtaining bail., Consequently the deponent deemed it proper to inquire the stage of the bail. The deponent was informed that the petitioner was going to be put up for identification on 7-2-1985 and in every probability the bail matter would be considered by the court after the identification proceedings in respect of the said crime had been completed. The deponent was informed that the petitioner was going to be put up for identification on 7-2-1985 and in every probability the bail matter would be considered by the court after the identification proceedings in respect of the said crime had been completed. Thereafter the petitioner was informed that as none of the witnesses had identified the petitioner in the test identification parade there was every possibility of petitioner being released on bail as had been apprehended in police report of the police station, Sigra, Varanasi. It was under these circumstances that the deponent on being satisfied about the desirability of an order of detention against the petitioner passed the order of detention on 11-2-85. Any suggestion that due to the result of identification proceedings the petitioner could not have been detained on the facts of that case is not admitted, as the papers produced before the deponent and furnished to the detenu leave no room to doubt that the two witnesses on account of fear and terror of the petitioner had not identified the petitioner by stating that they had neither seen nor recognised the accused." 11. Normally, in such cases, the identification memo would be a relevant and material document but on the facts of the present case the result of the identification proceedings was placed before the detaining authority. The non-production of the said memo of identification in the circumstances would not be very much material. The detaining authority had before him the report of the Station Officer of Police Station and that of the Senior Superintendent of Police as well as the statements of a number of other witnesses before him. If on the perusal and consideration of that material he formed subjective satisfaction for passing the detention order then on the facts of the case mere non- perusal of the identification memo would not be fatal in any way. 12. Learned counsel for the detenu has asserted that the detention order in question is bad on account of violation of section 3(4) of the Act inasmuch as the detaining authority had not sent his report to the State Government "forthwith" and the State Government had not confirmed the detention order within 12 days of the detention order. 12. Learned counsel for the detenu has asserted that the detention order in question is bad on account of violation of section 3(4) of the Act inasmuch as the detaining authority had not sent his report to the State Government "forthwith" and the State Government had not confirmed the detention order within 12 days of the detention order. In counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government it is mentioned in paragraph 3 that the detention order dated 11-2-1985 was approved by the State Government on 16-2-85 i.e. within five days thereof and was communicated to the district authorities on 19-2-1985. We are satisfied that no delay is involved in this matter and there has been no violation of said section. 3(4). 13. No other point has been pressed. 14. As a result, we see no force in this Writ Petition which is hereby dismissed.