Judgment :- Mishra, J. The petitioner has been detained as ‘Goonda’ under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. In the grounds of detention it is stated that the petitioner is a habitual criminal as he has come to adverse notice (1) in Thenampet Police Station Crime No. 139 of 1988, a case registered under Sec.379, Indian Penal Code on 20.1.1988 for alleged theft of Rs.1,838 belonging to one Dr. Kumarasamy at a bus stop within the jurisdiction of Thenampet Police Station Limits, Madras City, for which case he was charged on 110. 1988 and the trial is pending before the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras, in C.C.No.7630 of 1988, (2) in Thenampet Police Station Crime No. 1195 of 1988 under Sec.379, Indian Penal Code registered on 5. 1988 for alleged theft of Rs.1,805 belonging to one Subramani travelling in a bus at Thousand Lights near a bus stop within the jurisdiction of Thenampet Police Station, Madras City, in respect of which case he has been charged on 110. 1988 and trial is pending before the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras in C.C.No.7632 of 1988, (3) in Thenampet Police Station Crime No.1398 of 1988 under Sec.379, Indian Penal Code registered on 20.5.1988 for alleged theft of Rs. 1,830 from Seranathan in a bus within the jurisdiction of Thenampet Police Station limits, Madras City, in respect of which he was charged on 110. 1988 and trial is pending before the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras, in C.C.No.7633 of 1988 and (4) in Thenampet Police Station Crime No.2048 of 1988 under Secs.394,336,427 and 506 (ii) Indian Penal Code registered on 30.6.1988 for having snatched a zip hand bag containing cash of Rs.23.75 from one Amul Dass within the jurisdiction of Thenampet Police Station limits. When, however, the complainant tried to catch him, the petitioner assaulted him with knife, causing simple hurt and thus threatened the public with dire consequences, broke two soda bottles to threaten the public and caused breach of peace and panic in that area. This case was also charged on 110. 1988 and trial is pending against him in C.C.No.7629 of 1988 before the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras. 2. Thus, it is stated in the grounds of detention, inter alia, "On 6. This case was also charged on 110. 1988 and trial is pending against him in C.C.No.7629 of 1988 before the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras. 2. Thus, it is stated in the grounds of detention, inter alia, "On 6. 1990 at about 10.00 a.m. Thiru Kandasamy, male, aged 47 years, S/o.Perumal Gounder of Sundamettur Village of Sankari Taluk was standing at Prabath Cinema Theatre Bus Stop, Trichy Main Road, Salem with a leather bag containing cash Rs.1,000 and waiting for bus. He Game to Salem to see his ailing mother at T.V.C. Nursing Home, Gugai, Salem. At that time, the said Rajendran @ Giri came nearer to Kandasamy and tried to snatch the leather bag. But Kandasamy was holding the bag tightly, but Rajendran @ Giri suddenly showed a knife and as saulted and caused bleeding injury on the right index finger of Kandasamy and by threat snatched the leather bag from Kandasamy and started moving towards north. The said Kandasamy raised an alarm. On seeing this, one Mohan standing near Kandasamy also ran towards Rajendran @ Giri. On hearing the alarm raised by the said Kandasamy, auto drivers Durairaj and Krishnan and Gangaraj, Madavan (both cobblers) attempted to catch hold of said Rajendran @ Giri. At that time the said Rajendran @ Giri showed the knife and threatened them saying and then the said Rajendran @ Giri started running. On seeing the violent act committed by said Rajendran @ Giri, the pedestrians on the road, out of panic and fear, ran for their lives in different directions. The auto-rickshaw drivers, who were approaching the scene, out of panic and fear, moved fast in their vehicles. Nearby tea shop and lottery ticket shops owners closed their shops on seeing the violent act committed by the said Rajendran @ Giri. The entire traffic on the Salem-Trichy Main Road came to a standstill due to this violent incident. At that time some by-passers pelted stone on Thiru Rajendran @ Giri and he sustained injury on his left leg knee and fell down. Then Kandasamy with help of Mohan and auto drivers caught hold of Thiru Rajendran @ Giri by holding his hand and leg. Kandasamy took the leather bag and knife. On enquiry, Thiru Rajendran @ Giri identified himself as son of one Sivaraj @ Ramasamy, Chrompet, Madras. Then Kandasamy with help of Mohan and auto drivers caught hold of Thiru Rajendran @ Giri by holding his hand and leg. Kandasamy took the leather bag and knife. On enquiry, Thiru Rajendran @ Giri identified himself as son of one Sivaraj @ Ramasamy, Chrompet, Madras. At the time when Thiru Rajendran @ Giri was about to be taken to Shevapet Police Station, the police arrived at the spot. The said Kandasamy came to Shevapet Police Station along with Mohan and said Rajendran @ Giri and lodged a written complaint regarding the above described grave crime committed by the said Rajendran @ Giri and handed over the leather bag containing cash Rs. 1,000 and knife. A case were registered in Shevapet Police Station Crime Nos.361 and 52 of 1990 under Sec.397, I.P.C. The above case is under investigation. The above said Rajendran @ Giri was arrested by the Inspector of Police, Crime, Shevapet at 11.00 hrs. On 6. 1990, the production by the said Kandasamy at Shevapet Police Station, the leather bag, cash Rs.1,000 and knife were seized by the Inspector of Police, Shevapet Crime in Form-95. The said Rajendran @ Giri was remanded on 6. 90 before judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem. The case property was deposited in Judicial Magistrate No.III Salem in C.P.No.138 of 1990. By committing the above described crime in a public place, in an important and busy area, the said Rajendran @ Giri had created an alarm, panic and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people in the area and thereby acted in manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order." On that basis it is stated, "it petitioner by committing the above said grave crime in a crowded area at Prabath Cinema Theatre in Trichy Main Road, in the day light created alarm and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people in the area and thereby acted in a manner, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 3. At the time of the detention order, the petitioner was in jail custody in sub-jail (Men) Salem, and was being proceeded with under the normal law. The detaining authority has, however, stated: "I am aware that Thiru Rajendran @ Giri is now in remand in sub-jail (Men) Salem and would be proceeded under the normal law. 3. At the time of the detention order, the petitioner was in jail custody in sub-jail (Men) Salem, and was being proceeded with under the normal law. The detaining authority has, however, stated: "I am aware that Thiru Rajendran @ Giri is now in remand in sub-jail (Men) Salem and would be proceeded under the normal law. However, I am satisfied that his activities warrant his detention under the Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982." He has ordered for the petitioner’s detention on the materials mentioned above saying that if he is let out on bail he will indulge in further activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and further, the recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and therefore, he considered that there was a compelling necessity to prevent him from indulging in similar offences. 4. The law on the subject is well settled. We need not travel through the various authorities as in one of the latest judgments of the Supreme Court in Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1196, in respect of a detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and in another in T.Devaki v. Government of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1086 under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, the Supreme Court has stated the law, which law we are obliged to implement. In Dharmendra’s case, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1196, dealing with the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the Supreme Court considered the scope of Art.22(5) of the Constitution of India and stated: "The decisions referred to above lead to the conclusion that an order for detention can be validly passed against a person in custody and for that purpose it is necessary that the grounds of detention must show that (i) the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu is already in detention; and (ii) that there were compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that the detenu is already in detention. The expression "Compelling reasons" in the context of making an order for detention of a person already in custody implies that there must be cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which it may be satisfied that (a) the detenu is likely to be released from custody in the near future and (b) taking into account the nature of the antecedent activities of the detenu, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities." In coming to the above conclusion the Supreme Court referred to several earlier judgments including the cases of Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah,A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 315:1985 M.L.J. (Crl) 547: (1985)4 S.C.C.232: 1985 S.C.C.(Crl) 514:1986 Crl.L.J.312, Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 2177:1986 Crl.L.J. 2047: (1986)4 S.C.C. 378 :1986 S.C.C. (Crl.) 452 and N.Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 2027, as well as the case of Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, (1964)4 S.C.R. 921.A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 334 in which the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court stated: "As an abstract proposition of law, there may not be any doubt that Sec.3(1)(a) does not preclude the authority from passing an order of detention against a person whilst he is in detention or in jail; but the relevant facts in connection with the making of the order may differ and that may make a difference in the application of the principle that a detention order can be passed against a person in jail. Take for instance, a case where a person has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. It cannot be seriously suggested that soon after the sentence of imprisonment is pronounced on the person, the detaining authority can make an order directing the detention of the said person after he is released from jail at the end of the period of the sentence imposed on him. In dealing with this question, again the considerations of proximity of time will not be irrelevant. In dealing with this question, again the considerations of proximity of time will not be irrelevant. On the other hand, if a person who is undergoing imprisonment, for a very short period, say for a month or two or so, and it is known that he would soon be released from jail, it may be possible for the authority to consider the antecedent history of the said person and decide whether the detention of the said person would be necessary after he is released from jail, and if the authority is bona fide satisfied that such detention is necessary, he can make a valid order of detention a few days before the person is likely to be released." 5. The case of Masood Alam v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 897, Dulal Roy v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1508, Vijay Kumar v. State of J. & K, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1023 and Alijan Mian v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1130 and other cases besides the cases referred to above were considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1196, and the above conclusion was arrived at. .6. In T.Devaki v. Government of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1086, under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, the Supreme Court has observed: ."A solitary assault on one individual can hardly be said to disturb public peace or place public order in jeopardy so much as to bring the case within the purview of the Act. Such a solitary incident can only raise a law and order problem and no more." .7. We are of opinion that on both the grounds aforesaid, the present petition has to be allowed. The four previous instances referred to above relate to theft committed by the petitioner in the year 1988, without there being any connection of anything done besides the thefts, to create any disturbance of public order. The reference to his causing simple hurt with knife in Crime No.2048 of 1988 (referred to above) and threatening the public with dire consequences by breaking two soda bottles, however, have some connection of this kind, but they appear to be too remote in point of time. The instance for which the petitioner has been taken under detention is one dated 6. The instance for which the petitioner has been taken under detention is one dated 6. 1990, in which it is stated that the petitioner attempted to commit theft but when Kandasamy resisted he showed a knife and assaulted and caused bleeding injury on the index finger of Kandasamy and by threat snatched the leather bag from Kandasamy and started moving towards north. When Kandasamy raised alarm, one Mohan standing near Kandasamy also ran towards the petitioner and on hearing the alarm raised by him several other persons attempted to catch hold of the petitioner. At that time the petitioner showed the knife and threatened them and thereafter started running. On the basis of this, it is stated, on seeing the violent act committed by the petitioner, the pedestrians on the road, out of panic and fear, ran for their lives in different directions, that the autorickshaw drivers, who were approaching the scene, out of panic and fear, moved fast in their vehicles, that the nearby tea shop and lottery ticket shop owners closed their shops on seeing the violent act committed by the petitioner and the entire traffic on the Salem-Trichy main road came to a standstill due to this violent incident. It is further stated, "At that time some by-passers pelted stone on the petitioner and he sustained injury on his left leg knee and fell down. Then Kandasamy with help of Mohan and auto drivers caughthold of the petitioner by holding his hand and leg. Kandasamy took the leather bag and knife. On enquiry, petitioner identified himself as son of one Sivaraj @ Ramasamy, Chromepet, Madras. At the time when petitioner was about to be taken to Shevapet Police Station, the police arrived at the spot. The said Kandasamy came to Shevapet Police Station along with Mohan and petitioner, and lodged a written complaint regarding the above described grave crime committed by petitioner and handed over the leather bag containing cash Rs. 1,000. This solitary incident of a knife injury caused in a finger of the victim followed by the attempt of the petitioner to run away with the leather bag allegedly brandishing the knife is said to be such that the public order was in jeopardy. It is indeed a case squarely falling under the realm of law and order and not under the realm of public order. 8. It is indeed a case squarely falling under the realm of law and order and not under the realm of public order. 8. Courts in India have always maintained a distinction between law and order and public order. While crimes generally are admitted to be crimes against the society and thus under the realm of social justice, still, Courts say invariably that so long as they do not disturb even flow of life they do not cause any disturbance. To the public order, Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 has a definition of its own, wherein under Sec.2 it is stated, "(a) acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’ means- (i) xxx (ii)xxx (iii) in the case of a goonda, when he is engaged, or in making preparations for engaging in any of his activities as a goonda which affects adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order;" By dint of the fact that several eases falling under Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code were previously instituted against the petitioner he may be described as a ‘goonda’ because ‘goonda’ has been defined to mean a person, who either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences, punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act XLV of 1860). That the petitioner’s acts adversely affected or were likely to affect Adversely the maintenance of public order, however, cannot be accepted. In Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1966 S.C 740, the Supreme Court considered the meaning of public order in some details. In the leading judgment by Hidayatullah, J.,as he then was, it has been observed: ".......Disorder is no doubt prevented by the maintenance of law and order also but disorder is a broad spectrum which includes at one end small disturbances and at the other the most serious and cataclysmic happenings. Does the expression "public order" take in every kind of disorders or only some of them? The answer to this serves to distinguish "public order" from "law and order" because the latter undoubtedly takes in all of them. Public order if disturbed, must lead to public disorder. Every breach of the peace does not lead to public disorder. Does the expression "public order" take in every kind of disorders or only some of them? The answer to this serves to distinguish "public order" from "law and order" because the latter undoubtedly takes in all of them. Public order if disturbed, must lead to public disorder. Every breach of the peace does not lead to public disorder. When two drunkards quarrel and fight there is disorder but not public disorder. They can be dealt with under the powers to maintain law and order but cannot be detained on the ground that they were disturbing public order. Suppose that the two fighters were of rival communities and one of them tried to raise communal passions. The problem is still one of lawand order but it raises the apprehension of public disorder. Other examples can be imagined. The contravention of law, always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Defence of India Act but disturbances which subvert the public order are." 9. A similar view more or less has been expressed by the Supreme Court in T.Devaki’s case, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1086, that a solitary assault on one individual can hardly be said to disturb public peace or place public order in jeopardy so much as to bring the case within the purview of the Act. 10. On the other principle also, why the detaining authority presumed that petitioner would be enlarged on bail? Was he apprehensive that the case laid against the petitioner for the alleged offence committed by him on 6. 1990 was so weak that a Court of law would grant bail to the petitioner? No authority should be allowed to take liberty of this kind unless there are some materials for such a presumption. It was not known when the petitioner would have been released on bail. It was also not known in the event of his conviction petitioner would have been sentenced or not and if sentenced for what period. Yet, the detaining authority decided to make an order saying that if let out on bail the petitioner would indulge in further activities prejudicial to public order. 11. It was also not known in the event of his conviction petitioner would have been sentenced or not and if sentenced for what period. Yet, the detaining authority decided to make an order saying that if let out on bail the petitioner would indulge in further activities prejudicial to public order. 11. When either of the two rules aforementioned does not appear to have been satisfied in the instant case, the order of detention of the petitioner in our view, is thus not sustainable. The same is accordingly quashed. Let a writ of habeas corpus issue for releasing the petitioner forthwith from custody, if not wanted in connection with any other case.