JUDGMENT Kader, J. : This petition has been filed by the detenu himself under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the order of detention passed against him by the second respondent, Commissioner of Police, Madras City, under Sec.3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bottleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act 14 of 1982, with a view to preventing him from. acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 2. Mrs.R.Subadradevi, learned counsel for the petitioner, canvassed before us that the facts of the ground case attributed to the petitioner do not constitute acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, they are only acts detrimental to the maintenace of law and order and hence the provisions of Sec.3(1) of the Act have no application. 3. The facts of the ground are thus: On 16.6.1987 at 6.00 p.m., Thiru Govindarajulu, a resident of No.4, Pidariyar Koil Street, Madras, was proceeding a the junction of Govindappa Naicken Street and Anna Pillai Street. The petitioner came towards him and asked him to stop. On Govindarajulu stopping, the petitioner asked him to come near him and to deliver his belonging in the pocket. Govindarajulu became panicky and stood speechless. The petitioner shouted at him: and so saying thrust his hand into the shirt packet of Govindarajulu and took out his money purse. After thrusting the money purse inside his banian, the petitioner started going northwards. When Govindarajulu cried for help, three other persons, namely, Sundaram, DhanapaIand Mani, who were coming from the opposite direction stopped the culprit. Immediately, the petitioner removed his belt and threatened the people with dire consequences. He created terror and panic in the scene. Passers-by ran away; cyclists turned back; shop-keepers closed their shops and the movement of traffic was also disrupted. However, the petitioner lost balance and fell down and was apprehended by Govindarajulu, Sundaram, Dhanapal and Mani. On a complaint given by Govindarajulu, a case was registered in one C-5 Kothawalchavadi Police Station in Crime No.78 of 1987 for offences under Secs.379, 323, 336 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ is fine, but real. The distinction lies in the gravity of the act committed by the detenu. In Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration In Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration 1982 MLJ. 4. The distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ is fine, but real. The distinction lies in the gravity of the act committed by the detenu. In Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration In Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration 1982 MLJ. (Crl.) 124: A.I.R 1982 S.C. 1143 the learned Judges of the Supreme Court observes: “The true distinction between the areas of ‘public order’ and ‘law and order’ lies not in the nature of quality of the act, but in the degree and extent of its reach upon society. The distinction between the two concepts of ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ is a fine but this does not mean that there can be no overlapping acts similar in nature but committed in different contexts and circumstances might cause different re-actions. In one case it might affect specific individuals only and therefore touch the problem of law and order, while in another it might affect public order. The act by itself therefore is not determinant of its own gravity. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the ven tempo of the life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.” 5. The petitioner in this case has stopped in a public road in the busy evening an innocent passer-by, authoritatively asked him to give the contents of his pocket and when the victim was stunned speechless the petitioner has himself thrust his hands into the pocket and taken away the purse. He has thus wrongfully restrained the victim and taken away his purse by putting in fear of instant hurt. This act on the part of the petitioner which really amounts committing of robbery is not a mere threat to the victim put to the general public as well. It affects not only the person who is deprived of his valuables, but also the other persons, who frequent the highway. The nature of the act, the circumstances of its commission, the impact on the people around and such like factors constitute the pathology of ‘public order’. One cannot isolate the act from its public setting or analyse its molecule as in a laboratory to take its total effect on the flow of orderly life. It may be a question of degree and quality of the activity, the sensitivity of the situation and the psychic response of the involved people. One cannot isolate the act from its public setting or analyse its molecule as in a laboratory to take its total effect on the flow of orderly life. It may be a question of degree and quality of the activity, the sensitivity of the situation and the psychic response of the involved people. The act perpetrated by the petitioner is likely to have an impact on the general public. It is clearly an act against the public order and the provisions of Sec.3(5) are squarely attracted. The order of detention is not therefore liable, to be impugned. 6. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. B.S. ----- Petition dismissed.