Judgment : ARUNACHALAM, J. ( 1 ) THESE two habeas corpus petitions are disposed of together by a common order since the detenu in each one of these petitions is stated to be involved in the same ground case and further the contentions raised are identical. ( 2 ) IN both these habeas corpus petitions, detenus themselves are the petitioners. First respondent, who is the Commissioner of Police, Madras City, has passed the impugned orders of preventive detention against the petitioners, by orders dated 29. 7. 1992 in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, with a view to preventing each one of the detenus from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. ( 3 ) THE grounds of detention refer to two adverse crimes on the file of Choolaimedu Police Station registered in respect of occurrences, that had taken place on 15. 6. 1991 and 29. 4. 1992 in which the detenus are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 324,426,336 and 506 (ii) I. P. C. ( 4 ) THE ground instance is alleged to have taken place on 7. 7. 1992 at of about 7-45 a. m. Pandian, the victim fatally attacked, had personal animosity with Bullet Rajendran arising out of political differences. Two months prior to occurrence, Pandian had told his wife Dr. Chitra, that his life was in danger on account of Bullet Rajendran. On 7. 7. 1992 at 7-30 a. m. Pandian left his house with Dr. Chitra in his car and was proceeding through Sivan Koil Cross Street. While he was attempting to negotiate the curve towards Vellala Street at 7-45 a. m. he found an auto bearing Registration No. T. N.-01-CC. 6178 driven by one Sivakumar halting before his car. Pandian could not move further. Suddenly, both the detenus in the company of others alighted from the said auto, armed with patla knives. Both the detenus broke the front side glass of Pandians car. Another accused pulled out the wife of Pandian by her hair at or about the same time. Detenu in H. C. P. No. 681 of 1992 should as follows: Matter in other language Immediately, detenu in H. C. P. No. 680 of 1992 attacked Pandian with patta knife on his chest. When Dr. Another accused pulled out the wife of Pandian by her hair at or about the same time. Detenu in H. C. P. No. 681 of 1992 should as follows: Matter in other language Immediately, detenu in H. C. P. No. 680 of 1992 attacked Pandian with patta knife on his chest. When Dr. Chitra intervened, she sustained an injury on her left forearm. When she shouted, her thali was pulled off by another accused Kamal. It is needless to add that all the accused concerned in the crime had butcherted victim Pandian. Dr. Chitra raised a hue and cry for help. Detenu in H. C. P. No. 680 of 1992 shouted as follows: Matter in other language The public noticing the atrocious activities of both the detenus and others ran away from the spot out of fear of danger to their lives and properties. Again Dr. Chitra cried for help. Immediately the auto driver called his associates to get into the said auto. All the accused, including the detenus, got into the auto and escaped from the scene. Detenus were arrested during the course of investigation, produced before the concerned Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody. After follow up action the impugned orders of detention were passed. ( 5 ) MR. Rajasekaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is both these habeas corpus petitions, contended that, if at all, there was a probing law and order and there was no scope for holding that the detenus had acted in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Another contention was that there was enormous delay in disposal of the representations of the detenus dated 12. 9. 1992, without even calling for para wise remarks. ( 6 ) ON these two contentions, we have heard Mr. 1. Subramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He submitted that the facts placed before the detaining authority in every case should focus the problem of it, being one of law and order or disturbance to public order, As far as the second contention is concerned, he submitted that the representations dated 12. 9. 1992 were disposed of on 12. 9. 1992 without any delay after consideration of all aspects. ( 7 ) WE have carefully considered the divergent contentions and we have no hesitation in rejecting the second contention as that has no merit whatever. 9. 1992 were disposed of on 12. 9. 1992 without any delay after consideration of all aspects. ( 7 ) WE have carefully considered the divergent contentions and we have no hesitation in rejecting the second contention as that has no merit whatever. However, on the first contention, the detenus are bound to succeed. ( 8 ) DR. Anand, J. , speaking on behalf of the Division Bench in Harpreet Kumar v. State of Maharashtra1, has stated as hereunder: Public Order or Law and Order are two different and distinct concepts and there is abundance of authority of this Court drawing a clear distinction between the two. With a view to determining the validity or otherwise of the order of detention, it would be necessary to notice the difference between the two concepts. After referring to the case law on the subject learned Judge further observed: From the law laid by this Court, as noticed above, it follows that it is the degree and extent of the reach of the objectionable activity upon the society which is vital for considering the question whether a man has committed only a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause disturbance to public order. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Whenever an order or detention is questioned, the courts apply these tests to find out whether the objectionable activities upon which the order of detention is grounded fall under the classification of being prejudicial to public order or belong to the category of being prejudicial only to law and order. An order of detention under the Act would be valid if the activities of a detenu affect public order but would not be so where the same affect only the maintenance of law and order. Facts of each case have, therefore, to be carefully scrutinized to test the validity of an order of detention. In each case, therefore the courts have to see the length, magnitude and intensity of the questionable activities of a person to find out whether his activities are prejudicial to maintenance of public order or only law and order. Facts of each case have, therefore, to be carefully scrutinized to test the validity of an order of detention. In each case, therefore the courts have to see the length, magnitude and intensity of the questionable activities of a person to find out whether his activities are prejudicial to maintenance of public order or only law and order. Keeping the observations in view, let us now refer to the grounds of detention, to scrutinise if the instant case will fall under the category of law and order problem or can be raised to the status of commission of activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Following passages in the grounds of detention will help us in deciding this concept Further his wife Dr. Chitra raised hue and cry for help. Tr. Kulla Rajendran also raised terrorizing shouts by uttering (Matter in other language) and threatened everyone at the spot. The public noticing the atrocious activities of Tr. Kulla Rajendran, Tr. Dinesh Vellai (detenus) and others ran away from the spot out of fear of danger to their lives and properties. Again Dr. Chitra cried for help. Immediately, the auto driver Tr. Sivakumar called his associates to get into the said auto. All of them got into the auto and escaped from the scene By committing the above described grave crimes in the public that too in the busy thoroughfare in the day time, in the busy locality has created alarm and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people of the area and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. ( 9 ) NOWHERE in the grounds of detention we are able to visualise that the detaining authority had satisfied himself about the even tempo of public life having been affected in the locality. Time and again we come across grounds of detention while stating about the closing down of shutters of the shop keepers in the locality, paralysing of the public transport system, running away of public helter skelter and members of the points getting stunned dumb founded and stranded for some length of time, in the venue of crime. All these aspects are conspicuously absent in the impugned orders of detention. All these aspects are conspicuously absent in the impugned orders of detention. We cannot omit it to visualise that an accused in the process of escape from the scene of crime will have to instinctively preserve himself by utterances of threat he already being armed and that alone cannot be held to be t activity affecting the maintenance of public order. This is a case, where individual animosity between Pandian and the detenus had resulted in a crime having been committed in a public place. We are satisfied that there should be some more material to bring the activities of the detenus within the concept of prejudicial activity affecting the maintenance of public order. Violations of law attributed against individuals cannot be held to affect the even flow of life. This is always a question of fact. Mere Utterance of threat in the process of escape after the commission of a crime, arising out of personal vendetta, which does not affect the normal and even tempo of public life, cannot give rise to clamping orders of preventive detention. We are satisfied, on the facts placed before us, that only law and order problem is disclosed and not activities prejudicial to maintenance of public order. On that sole ground, both the habeas corpus petitions are allowed. Detenus shall be released forthwith unless their detentions are required otherwise. Petition allowed.