K. N. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has challenged validity of his continued detention made in pursuance of the order of the District Magistrate, Kanpur, dated 1/2/1985. ( 2 ) THE District Magistrate, Kanpur, issued an order on 1/2/1985, in exercise of his power under section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980, for the petitioners detention as he was satisfied that the petitioners detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from indulging into activities prejudicial to public order. The detention order was served on the petitioner on 2/2/1985 in jail where he was detained in connection with some other criminal case. The petitioner has since then continued to be under detention in jail. The District Magistrate in compliance to the provisions of section 8 of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) communicated grounds to the petitioner upon which the detention order has been made. The ground of detention as served upon the petitioner refers to an incident which took place on 12/1/1985. English translation of the ground is as under: After your release from Jail on 18/4/1984, you went to house No. 94/95, in front of Abdul Mai Corporation situate in Police Station Beconganj, Kanpur, at about 7 P. M. on 12/1/1985, along with your associates, Lakhan, Saturi Pandit and Shakil Chhota alias Shakil Chikna. You and your associates were armed with country made pistols and bombs. You had revolver in your right hand and a bomb in your left hand. Your associate Shakil Chhota alias Shakil Chikna had a bomb in his right hand and Saturi Pandit and Lakhan had in their hands country made pistols. You threw bomb on Mohd. Sabir which fell at a corner near the Chanda Building. On the explosion of the bomb Mohd. Sabir received injuries on his back. The noise created by the explosion of the bomb attracted police party which was on patrol duty. The immediately reached the spot, whereupon you and your associates ran away in a lane adjacent to Tahir garage. On being persued by the police and other persons you and your companions fired on them and threw bombs as a result of which R. D. Azad, Sub-Inspector, was injured in his left thigh. The police party returned the fire in defence. On being persued by the police and other persons you and your companions fired on them and threw bombs as a result of which R. D. Azad, Sub-Inspector, was injured in his left thigh. The police party returned the fire in defence. While running you fell down near a Nali as a result of which the bomb in your hand exploded causing serious injuries in your left hand palm. Thereafter the police caught hold of you but your associates fled away. At the time of your arrest an English revolver of 32 bore was recovered from your right hand which had two live cartridges. As a result of this incident the life of the community was disturbed and people started running helter skelter and shops were closed and the entire area was gripped with fear. ( 3 ) THE ground further states that a report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodge at Police Station Beconganj under section 307 I. P. C. and section 25 Arms Act against the petitioner. The order further states that in view of the aforesaid facts stated in the ground the District Magistrate was satisfied that in order to maintain public order, it was necessary to detain the petitioner. The State Government by its order dated 7. 2. 1985 approved the detention order. The petitioner made a representation to the State Government and he also appeared before the Advisory Board. On the recommendation of the Advisory Board the State Government by its order dated 21/3/1985 confirmed the detention order. ( 4 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, it appears that there have been two groups of Muslims in Kanpur, one led by Tufail Ahmad alias Babu Pahalwan, father of the petitioner, and the other led by Moinuddin Qureshi and his brothers. Both the parties have indulged into various crimes and offences and members belonging to the rival group have taken law into their hands on different occasions. The petitioner has alleged that the group belonging to Moinuddin Qureshi and others is in collusion with the police as a result of which the petitioners brothers Aqil Ahmad and Tahim Ahmad were detained in 1981-82 under the Act. They challenged the validity of their detention by means of a Habeas Corpus Petition in this Court. The petition was allowed and the detention order was held illegal and both the brothers were released from detention. They challenged the validity of their detention by means of a Habeas Corpus Petition in this Court. The petition was allowed and the detention order was held illegal and both the brothers were released from detention. Again in 1984, the District Magistrate at the instance of the police issued a detention order against the petitioners brother Fahim Ahmad who challenged the detention order by means of a Habeas Corpus Petition in this Court which was allowed on 23/8/1984, consequently he was released from detention. Since the police failed in its design to keep the petitioners brothers in detention they submitted proposal to the District Magistrate for the petitioners detention and the District Magistrate issued detention, order on 31/7/1984 and in pursuance thereof the petitioner was detained. On a petition being filed by the petitioner, this Court by the order dated 30. 10. 1984 found the petitioners detention illegal, consequently the petitioner was released. Within a couple of months there after the police again submitted proposal for the petitioners detention for the alleged attack On Mohd. Sabir who is an arch enemy of the petitioner. These allegations have been made in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the petition. In his counter-affidavit, Chandra Kumar Sharma, the District Magistrate of Kanpur, who passed the impugned order of detention, has admitted in paragraph 8 of his counter affidavit that there are two groups, that there has been arch rivalry between the two groups and that they have committed murders of members of one group or the other with a view to establish their superiority. He has no doubt denied the petitioners allegation that the other group had colluded with the police to get the petitioner and his party arrested under the Act. On these pleadings, it is abundantly clear that there is serious enmity between the petitioner and Sabir Husain and the two groups have been fighting each other for gaining superiority. The petitioner is alleged to have caused injuries on Mohd. Sabir on account of serious enmity which existed between the two. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Magistrate has under a mistaken notion of his power under section 3 (2) of the Act issued the impugned order for the petitioners detention on his purported satisfaction that the petitioners activities as narrated in the ground -were pre-judicial to maintenance of public order. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Magistrate has under a mistaken notion of his power under section 3 (2) of the Act issued the impugned order for the petitioners detention on his purported satisfaction that the petitioners activities as narrated in the ground -were pre-judicial to maintenance of public order. The sole incident as recited in the ground does not relate to public order, instead it relates to law and order. He placed reliance on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Ajay Dixit v. State of U. P. and also on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ashok Dixit v. State of U. P. Learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the detaining authority urged that the petitioner and his associates made assault on Mohd Sabir in a public place by using fire arms and bombs and caused terror and scare in the locality. The explosion of the bomb created panic in the locality. On being persued by the police the petitioner and his associates acted like desperados and terrorists in firing upon the police. These activities of the petitioner had the potentiality to disturb the even tempo of the life of the community consequently the petitioners activities as disclosed in the grounds are pre judicial to the maintenance of public order. ( 6 ) SECTION 3 (2) of the Act confers power on the detaining authority to detain a person on his satisfaction that the detention of the person is necessary with a view to prevent him from acting prejudicial to public order. If the alleged activities on the basis of which detention order is issued do not fall within the ambit and scope of public order the order of detention would be invalid. The activities of a detenu which form basis for his detention must have reasonable nexus with Public Order. Many a time distinction between Public Order and Law and Order is not maintained as a result of which detention orders are issued even in those cases where the activities of the detenu related to law and order. Commission of crime and disorderly behaviour in a public place would necessarily affect law and order but not public order. Breach of law and order creates disorder but every such breach does not necessarily affect public order. Public order refers to public peace and tranquility. Commission of crime and disorderly behaviour in a public place would necessarily affect law and order but not public order. Breach of law and order creates disorder but every such breach does not necessarily affect public order. Public order refers to public peace and tranquility. The distinction between the Public Order and Law and Order has been considered, in detail by a-Pull Bench of this Court in Ashoka Dixit v. Union of India and others decided on 1. 8. 1985. The full bench after detailed discussion held as under: A solitary assault on one individual which may well be equated with ordinary murder can hardly be said to disturb public peace or place public order in jeopardy so as to bring the case within the purview of the Act. It can only a raise a law and order problem and no more. The Act or incident attributed to the detenu may be re-apprehensible and yet if it concerns only specific individuals and it has no impact on the general members of the community and has no potentiality of disturbing the even tempo of the life of the people it cannot be held to be an activity prejudicial to public order. Merely because the activity in a public place creates terror among the spectators, it does not necessarily have the potentiality to affect the even tempo of the life of the community. ( 7 ) IN Ajay Dixits case (supra) the Supreme Court reiterated that the nature of incidents alleged must be such as to create an apprehension that the even tempo of the community would be in danger. The day to day life of the community at large should be adversely affected by the incidents which are related to public order. If the incidents or the offence attributed to a detenu do not have tendency to disturb the current life of the community the same cannot amount to disturbance of public order. Though a genius apprehensible offence may have been committed against an individual yet the tranquility of the society may remain undisturbed. The detaining authority has no power to detain a person on the basis of the incidents which are confined against specific individuals and which have no adverse effect on the life of the community. ( 8 ) IN the instant case the petitioner is alleged to have committed solitary assault on Mohd. The detaining authority has no power to detain a person on the basis of the incidents which are confined against specific individuals and which have no adverse effect on the life of the community. ( 8 ) IN the instant case the petitioner is alleged to have committed solitary assault on Mohd. Sabir in a public place by using firearms and bombs. The petitioners activity was directed towards an individual with whom he had serious enmity. Since the crime was committed in a public place, it was bound to have created some scare and apprehension in the spectators but that by itself does not mean that public peace and tranquility was disturbed or that even tempo of the life of the community was disturbed. The activities of the petitioner as alleged in the ground had no potentiality to disturb the even tempo of the life of the community. The grounds on which the petitioner has been detained do not, therefore, relate to public order instead they relate to law and order. The detention order is, therefore, rendered illegal. ( 9 ) IN the result we allow the petition and direct the respondents to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith unless required to be detained in some other case. .