JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Solitary criminal activity of the Petitioner along with two of his association 27-2-1987 at about 8.30, p. m. near Gourishankar Park in Choudhury Bazar of Cuttack town has been taken to be the ground for detention of the Petitioner u/s 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980, which is assailed in this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of a writ in the nature of habeas carpus directing the apposite parties to set him at liberty forthwith. The learned Government Advocate has produced the file which discloses that the two associates of the Petitioner are under detention likewise. 2. The short question for consideration is whether the activity as alleged is only a disturbance of law and order is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In order to consider the said question, the truth of the grounds is not to be considered. Accepting the same, it is to be considered whether the even tempo of the life of the community has been disturbed. It is to be kept in mind that disturbance of law and order is the larger circle within which lies the smaller circle of disturbance of public order. 3. As has been observed in the recent decision of the Supreme Court after taking into consideration the previous decision on the subject, reported in state of U.P. v. Hari Shankar Tewari AIR 1937 S.C. 998. .... One has to turn to the facts of each case to ascertain whether the matter relates to the larger circle or the smaller circle. An act which may not at all objected to in certain situations is capable of totally disturbing the public tranquillity. When communal tension is high an indiscreet act of no significance is likely to disturb or dislocate the even tempo of the life of the community. An order of detention made in such a situation has to take note of the potentiality of the act objected to. No hard and fact rule can really be evolved to deal with problems of human society. Every possible situation cannot be brought under watertight classifications and a set of tests to deal with them cannot be laid down. An order of detention made in such a situation has to take note of the potentiality of the act objected to. No hard and fact rule can really be evolved to deal with problems of human society. Every possible situation cannot be brought under watertight classifications and a set of tests to deal with them cannot be laid down. As and when an order of detention is questioned, it is for the Court to apply these well-known tests (as laid down in the previous decision) to find out whether the impugned activities upon which the order of detention is grounded go under the classification of public order or belong to the category of law and order." ( Bracketed expression supplied by me ) In S.K. Kedar Vs. State of West Bengal it has been observed: .... An act by itself is not determinative of its own gravity. In its quality it may not differ from another but in its potentiality it may be very different. Similar acts in different contexts affect differently Law and Order on the one hand and public order on the other. It is always question of degree of the harm and its effect upon the community. Public order is the even tempo of the life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. It is the degree of disturbance and itself fact upon the life of the community in a locality which determines whether the disturbance amounts only to breach of the law and order..... (Emphasis supplied) This Bench in an earlier decision in Subash Chandra Sahoo v. District Magistrate, Bolangir O.J. C. Nos. 3063 and 3068/86, Dt 24-12-1986, decided on 24-12-1986 held: The cardinal and basic distinction in such cases is to see as to whether it leads to disturbance of the current life of the community so as to amount to disturbance of the public order or whether it affects merely on an individual leaving the tranquillity of the society undisturbed......... 4. As has been stated earlier, Court's power is limited as it cannot go behind the subjective satisfaction of the authorities expressed in the face of the order of detention and it cannot normally delve into the truth or otherwise of the facts alleged. 4. As has been stated earlier, Court's power is limited as it cannot go behind the subjective satisfaction of the authorities expressed in the face of the order of detention and it cannot normally delve into the truth or otherwise of the facts alleged. On the grounds which are the basis of detention, Court is to examine whether a reasonable man could have come to the conclusion that the grounds satisfy the conclusion that the act and the manner in which it was performed are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the locality. Consideration of an activity at one locality may not be sine qua non for consideration of similar activity at another place or in another locality. 5. The short ground on which the Petitioner has been detained in that on 27-2-1987 at about 8.30 p. m. he along with two of his associates went to the shop of Ashok Kumar Jain near Gourishankar Park in Choudhury Bazar of Cuttack town. Petitioner and one of his associates entered the shop and demanded shirting and suiting cloths free of cost and also demanded the key of the cash box. On refusal by Ashok Kumar, Petitioner dragged him out of the sale counter abusing and threatening to kill him. On being directed by the Petitioner his associate brought out a bhujali (deadly weapon) and placed it at the belly of Ashok Kumar. Trying to escape, Ashok Kumar fell down on the road and other associate caught hold of him. Getting up Ashok Kumar ran towards the traffic constable on duty. On information from Ashok Kumar, the traffic constable proceeded towards the shop. At the approach of the traffic constable, Petitioner and his associates fled away taking the scissors from the shop which was being used for cutting the cloth. Due to such activity of the Petitioner and his associates, the persons present in the shop ran away. The nearby shopkeepers closed down their shops and the peace and tranquillity of the area was jeopardised. The vehicular traffic on the road was paralysed and the road became isolated. None ventured to protest against the anti-social activity of the Petitioner and his associates. The nearby shopkeepers closed down their shops and the peace and tranquillity of the area was jeopardised. The vehicular traffic on the road was paralysed and the road became isolated. None ventured to protest against the anti-social activity of the Petitioner and his associates. Therefore, to prevent the Petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the Petitioner was detained on 3-3-1987 It is not in dispute that the two associates of the Petitioner have also been so detained as has been stated earlier. 6. Mrs. A. K. Padhi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that perusal of the grounds would lead to an inference of disturbance of law and order only being a criminal act against Ashok Kumar and it is not a case of disturbance of the public order. It is only to be observed that there is no strait-jacket formula in which the activity of a detenu is to be considered. Each case shall depend upon its own facts. 7. Mrs. Padhi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, relied upon a decision of this Court reported in Jyoti Ranjan Samantray v. State of Orissa and Anr. 56 (1983) C.L.T. 88. The said case relates to the activities of the detenu in Sheikh Bazar, Court premises of the Sessions Judge. Cuttack, Kanika Chhak, Khatbin Sahi and Cuttack Chandi area. Out of these activities in one case there was acquittal. This Court observed: ... All the six incidents, therefore, constitute the grounds of detention and if there is any vice in any of them the order of detention must fail... This case, therefore, would be of no -assistance to the Petitioner. The other case relates to a decision in Umesh Chandra Saran v, District Magistrate, Sundargarh and Anr. O.J.C. No. 2968/86, Dt. 28-1-1987, decided on 28.1.1987. In the said decision the ground of detention was that on 4-7-1986 at about 11 a. m. the detenu committed robbery in a fair-price shop of one Sukanta Kumar Pradhan in Sector-B of Rourkela town. The detenu demanded from Sukanta a sum of Rs. 100/-. On his refusal, the detenu threatened Sukanta to assault him and went away with the account books. It was observed: .... The detenu demanded from Sukanta a sum of Rs. 100/-. On his refusal, the detenu threatened Sukanta to assault him and went away with the account books. It was observed: .... The Petitioner did not commit any other overt act, like threatening the neighbours or committing any other overt act in the public place openly, thereby disturbing the public tranquillity or the even tempo of life in the area.... This case would be of no assistance to the Petitioner, A decision more nearer to the facts of this case is Piusadhar Vas alias Siku v. State of; Orissa, through the Secretary to Govt, of Orissa O.J.C. No. 3080/86, D/23-4-19877, Home department and others6. In the said decision, as in this case, the criminal activity of the detenu was at 8.30 p. m. in a cinema hall. He forced himself to the first class booking window breaking the queue and demanded ten tickets from the booking clerk. While the booking clerk declined to give so many tickets at a, time; and the intending purchasers protested against illegal demand of the detenu be being annoyed brought out a Bhujali from inside the right side of his trouser and threatened the persons assembled there who became panic-stricken. As a result of the same, the persons in the queue purchasiqg; the tickets and Ors. who were waiting to go inside the hall ran away for life helter-skelter. When the Sub-Inspector of Police in duty and the Constable protested to the conduct of the detenu, he rushed towards them raising the Bhujali to attack them. The request for help of the Sub-Inspector of Polite was not responded by the people present on account of the ferocious figure of the detenu. Scolding in obscene language, the detenu threatened to separate the head and the trunk of the person who would come, near him. The vendors and the shopkeepers inside the cinema hall area and nearby closed their shops. The booking counter was closed out of fear. The flow of pedestrians and the vehicles was stopped for some time arid even life of the people of the locality and discipline in the area was disturbed. It was held that the even tempo of the life of the community was affected and the activity was not a mere problem of law and order. 8. The flow of pedestrians and the vehicles was stopped for some time arid even life of the people of the locality and discipline in the area was disturbed. It was held that the even tempo of the life of the community was affected and the activity was not a mere problem of law and order. 8. In the present case in a busy locality of Choudhury Bazar and when the people were having this purchases not only the Petitioner but also two of his associates, one of whom was armed with deadly weapon like Bhujali, entered the shop of Ashok Kumar Jian, and demanded cloth pieces from him and also the key of the cash book. In case this would have been at a time when the locality was not crowded as at 11 a.m. in the Rourkela case, the question might have been different even if the purchasers would have only ran away. The grounds of detention disclose that the activity did not stop there. At the point of bhujali Ashok Kumar was dragged out. A feeling of uncertainty was created in the mind of the people of the locality and they could not be assured that the action only related to an attack on Ashok Kumar. They immediately closed their shops. Besides the traffic got affected and as is disclosed it was paralysed, making the road isolated. The impact of the activity of the Petitioner and his conspirators was such that in a busy time of commercial activity at 8. 30 p. m. normal life in the heart of the Cuttack town having commercial importance became paralysed. There cannot be any doubt in my mind that even tempo of the life of the community in that locality was directly affected. It is not a case of mere law and order. The other decisions of the Supreme Court cited by Mrs. Padhi were rendered on the facts and circumstances of those cases and in the individual circumstances they were examined whether the criminal activity related to a mere disturbance of law and order or was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 9. In the result, the only point urged by Mr. Padhi having failed there is no merit in this writ application which is accordingly dismissed. H.L. Agrawal, C.J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed