JUDGMENT : K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J. - This is an application seeking release of the Petitioner quashing the order of detention passed by Opp. Party No. 1 u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 as per Annexure-1 dated 29-9-1989. 2. As it is revealed from the ground of detention, the order of detention had been passed mainly on account of the fact that on 19-9-1989 the Petitioner along with two others had assaulted one Laxminarayan Panda inside the temple of Lord Jagannath at Puri by using bhujali and iron rods. The Petitioner was armed with bhujali when he inflicted bleeding injuries on Laxminarayan Panda. This had terrified the members of the public who started running in different directions and according to the notice, that was an act carrying potential menace for disturbing the public order. A police constable who was in duty came out to rescue the injured, but was assaulted by the Petitioner on his head and had sustained bleeding injuries. As per the statements in Annexure-1, for some time the temple was deserted and normal life in the temple was affected. A police case was lodged against the Petitioner under Sections 307, 332 and 34, I.P.C. and the police case was registered on 19-9-1989 which was sue-judice on the date of detention. It was further indicated in the said notice that during the investigation of that case, the Petitioner had threatened that on his release on bail, be would take away the life of Laxminarayan Panda and a station diary to that effect was also made in the police station on 25-9-1989. On 16-5-1988 the Petitioner was alleged to have attempted to kill another Sebayat of the temple namely Damodar Mohasuar due to previous enmity for which the Petitioner was charge-sheeted under Sections 506, 504, 34, I.P.C. Taking into account all these facts and thinking that the Petitioner was causing menace to the public order, opp. Party No. 1 passed the order of detention and the said detention order was approved by the State Government in Home Department by their order dated 3-10-1989 as per Annexure-2. 3. The preventive detention is not intended as a punitive measure as curtailment of liberty by way of punishment for an offence already committed. Party No. 1 passed the order of detention and the said detention order was approved by the State Government in Home Department by their order dated 3-10-1989 as per Annexure-2. 3. The preventive detention is not intended as a punitive measure as curtailment of liberty by way of punishment for an offence already committed. When the impact of the criminal activity of a person is deeper and affects even tempo of life and public order as the repercussion of the act would embrace large Sections of the community and incite them 'to make further breach of law and order to subvert the public order that would be a case not only of law and order but also affecting public order and calls for the special measure of detaining the offender without trial under the National Security Act. In a case reported in AIR 1969 S.C. 1004 (Sushanta Goswami and Ors. v. The State of West Bengal), it was held, that when the ground of detention related to the matters for which penal or other action could be taken under the relevant statute and prosecution could be launched under the said statute if ordinarily should not attract the application of the provision for detention under the National Security Act. The contravention of any law always affects the order, but before it could be said to have affected public order it has to be seen if the impact of the criminality would affect the community and public at large. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is not necessarily sufficient for action under the Act. In a case reported in Omprakash Vs. Commissioner of Police and Others, ) the Supreme Court while considering a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India filed by a detenu challenging the order of detention made by the Detaining Authority dealt with the scope of application of the National Security Act. The pith and substance of the alleged anti-social activities of the detenu as mentioned in the grounds of detention were that the detenu as a bootlegger was engaged in unlawfully storing and selling the country made and foreign liquor at Dhabawali Chawl, Saraspur Ahmedabad through himself and his associates and was causing injuries to innocent persons of that locality by using lethal weapons thereby unleashing a reign of terror in the said area. Four cases under Bombay Prohibition Act; one under the Indian Arms Act and another under the Indian Penal Code have been registered against the detenu. The Detaining Authority under the National Security Act after careful consideration of the entire materials, that the Petitioner was possessing deadly weapons, was beating innocent citizens in public in the said and creating fear by threatening and carrying on criminal anti-social activities by selling country and foreign 1iquor in the said area and beating innocent citizens who came on his way, who refused to store the prohibited material in the said area by show of deadly weapons as a result of which the atmosphere of risk to the person and properties of the residents in the said area had been created by him and as such caused hindrance to the maintenance of public order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by perusing the facts of the case before them in the light of the decision of Piyush Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City and Another, ) held that the materials available on record were not sufficient and adequate to hold that the prejudicial activities of the detenu had either affected adversely or likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order within the meaning of Section 4(3) of the National Security Act and accordingly quashed the order. In Piyush Mehta's case the Supreme Court had held thus: It is true, some incidents of beating by the Petitioner had taken place, as alleged by the witnesses. But, such incidents, in our view, do not have any bearing of the maintenance of public order. The Petitioner may be punished for the alleged offences committed by him but, surely, the acts constituting the offences cannot be said to have affected even the tempo of the life of the community. It may be that the Petitioner is a bootlegger within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act, but merely because he is a bootlegger he cannot be preventively detained under the provisions of the Act unless, as laid down in Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act, his activities as a bootlegger affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of Public order. We have carefully considered the offences alleged against the Petitioner in the order of detention and also the allegations made by the witnesses and, in our opinion, these offences or the allegations cannot be said to have created any feeling of insecurity or panic or terror among the members of the public of the area in question giving rise to the question of maintenance of public order. The order of detention cannot, therefore, be upheld. The principles decided in the case of Piyush Mehta's case was followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Omprakash (supra) and is applicable to the facts of this case. 4. The Petitioner of this case by his assault on Laxminarayan panda inside the temple might have caused some panic in the minds of some members of the public who were around the place of occurrence but cannot be said to have created any feeling of in security or panic so as to raise a question of maintenance of public order and can be taken care of under the Indian Penal Code. The quarrel as stated in the Annexure-1 is an offspring of their private enmity and the other case referred in the said notice namely of his assault on Damodar Mohasuar on 16-5-1988 was also an act of revenge based on previous quarrel which were not intended to affect the community at large. It was a disturbance of peace and order directed against individual which did not disturb the society so as to cause general disturbance to public tranquillity. It is the degree of disturbance and its effect on the life of the community that determines whether the disturbance amounted to situations in affecting the tranquillity of the community. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in a case reported in 66 (1988) C.L.T. 344 (Ganesh Khuntia v. District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Puri and Anr.) in which one of us (Hon'ble Sri R.C. Patnaik, J.) speaking for the Bench in the said case observed that while a solitary act like dacoity in running train or bus as in Subal Chandra Ghosh's case or in Narayan Debanath's case reported in AIR 1972 S.C. 2146 and Narayan Debnath Vs. The State of West Bengal, respectively can justify preventive detention, when materials did not disclose that the detenu had a tendency to disturb the even tempo of life in the community, the solitary act of the Petitioner which was directed against an individual could be taken care of by the general law of the land and did not call for the application of the National Security Act. 6. In the present case the act of the portioner was a solitary one and there is no material before us from which we can infer that the criminal action of the detenu had the tendency to disturb even the tempo of life in the community. It was a solitary crime directed against a certain individual and could not justify the preventive detention under the National Security Act. We, therefore, quash the order of detention as per Annexure-I, allow the writ application and direct that the Petitioner be set at liberty forthwith. R.C. Patnaik, J. I agree. Writ petition allowed. Final Result : Allowed