JUDGMENT : R.K. Dash, J. - These writ petitions are filed by two detenus challenging the detention orders passed against them by the Collector and District Magistrate, Ganjam, under the National Security Act, 1980 ('the Act' for short). Since common questions of law and fact are involved both the writ petitions are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The grounds of detention as well as the copies of the orders of detention were served on the detenus at the time when they were detained in custody. To appreciate the questions involved, it is necessary to reproduce the grounds of detention as under : "1. On 19-6-1994 around 10 P. M., Promod Das along with his associates Ashok Kumar Sahu, Narendra Sahu and 3/4 others assaulted one Bhagawan Sahu at Mentu Chhak, Old Berhampur by giving fist blows without any rhyme and reason. A number of people had gathered around the spot at a distance and witnessed the occurrence but none could venture to oppose the activities of these anti-socials. When Bhagwan Sahu cried and screamed with agony, few people from amongst the onlookers tried to Come close, Promod Das and Ashok Sahu abused them and threatened to cut into pieces if anybody tried to obstruct them saying as JEUN MAGHIA AMA PAKHAKU ASIBA, TAKU KHANDA KHANDA KARI PHOPADI DEBU, GANDIRE DUM THELE ASARE MAGHIA. 'They hurried two country-made bombs towards the police which bursted on the public road with big sound resulting into fear psychosis and sense of imminent danger and terror in the people who ran away helter skelter to save their lives. The shopkeepers in the area like Panwalas, tea-stall keepers and egg shopkeepers etc., closed their shops immediately and fled away from the place. The passers-by, two-wheelers, cyclists and pedestrians, too, ran away from the Chhak area. The people who were squatting on their verandah due to humidity, ran into their houses leaving their beddings and charpoys and closed the doors from inside. The Mentu Chhak area, generally remains busy till around mid-night, but due to the daring act of Promod Das and his associates, the area became deserted. The anti-socials kept shouting for some time to terrorise the people saying as MAGHIA-SAMNE ASARE, TAMA MAA MAIPANKU NEBU, KOU MAGMA AMARA KANA CHODIBA DEKHIBU AMAKU CHINHINA' and went away leaving behind injured Bhagawan Sahu who was lying on the road. The anti-socials kept shouting for some time to terrorise the people saying as MAGHIA-SAMNE ASARE, TAMA MAA MAIPANKU NEBU, KOU MAGMA AMARA KANA CHODIBA DEKHIBU AMAKU CHINHINA' and went away leaving behind injured Bhagawan Sahu who was lying on the road. One Debendra Kumar Padhi of the locality telephoned to B. Bazar P. S. from inside his press situated near Mentu Chhak, but could not get due to recent change in the telephone number. He, therefore, informed the matter to the S. P., I.I.C., B. Bazar P.S Sri B. K. Patnaik along with his staff, after getting intimation from the S. P. rushed to the spot and reached around 10.30 P.M. There was a total lull in the locality. Bhagawan Sahu was shifted to the city Hospital, Berhampur for treatment by Police. The I.I.C. requested the people not to be panic and narrated about happenings. After much persuation by police the people started collecting there. The police tried to restore the confidence in the minds of people, but the panic stricken people demanded that unless police picket is deployed there round the clock, their lives would be unsafe. Static Police guards were immediately deployed at Mentu Chhak and are still continuing round the clock. Despite this, the sense of fear and insecurity among the citizens of the locality continues who have been requesting not to remove the police from the area. In connection with this incident, B. Bazar P. S. Case No. 73 Dt. 19-6-1994 u/s 147/148/ 323/149, IPC/3 N. S. Act was registered against the criminals Pramod Das, Ashok Kumar Sahu and others and is under Investigation." 3. The aforesaid order was approved by the State Government u/s 3(4) of the Act. The petitioners made representations challenging the grounds of detention which having been rejected by the Government, rejection orders were communicated to the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders of detention, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions separately seeking to quash their orders of detention and to pass such other orders for doing complete. 4. Learned counsel Shri S. Das appearing for the petitioners has strenuously contended that the act complained of can be said to be related to the maintenance of law and order and not disturbance of public order. 4. Learned counsel Shri S. Das appearing for the petitioners has strenuously contended that the act complained of can be said to be related to the maintenance of law and order and not disturbance of public order. The solitary instance on the basis of which the detention order was passed, argued the counsel can very well be dealt with under the ordinary penal laws of the country and therefore, the stringent provision of the Act should not have been applied to curtail the personal liberty of the petitioners which is guaranteed to them by Article 21 of the Constitution. Per contra, the learned counsel Shri S.K. Das, Government Advocate, would urge that a solitary act can be considered for subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority to pass an order of detention and in the case in hand, the authority having given anxious consideration to the overall facts and circumstances, passed the impugned orders since it effected public order and therefore, the said order need no interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 5. In view of the contentions raised by the counsel appearing for the parties as aforesaid, the sole question for determination is whether the act complained of falls within the ambit of 'public order' or 'law and order', as provided u/s 3(2) of the Act. 6. To appreciate the difference between maintenance of law and order and public order, a reference may be made to the case of Arun Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal where it is observed : "...Public order was said to embrace more of the community than law and order. Public order is the even tempo of the life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. Disturbance of public order is to be distinguished from acts directed against individuals which do not disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public tranquillity. It is the degree of disturbance and its effect upon the life of the community in a locality which determines whether the disturbance amounts only to a breach of law and order. Take for instance, a man stabs another. People may be shocked and even disturbed, but the life of the community keeps moving at an even tempo, however much one may dislike the act. Take another case of a town where there is communal tension. Take for instance, a man stabs another. People may be shocked and even disturbed, but the life of the community keeps moving at an even tempo, however much one may dislike the act. Take another case of a town where there is communal tension. A man stabs a member of the other community. This is an act of a very different sort. Its implications are deeper and it affects the even tempo of life and public order is jeopardised because the repercussions of the act embrace large sections of the community and incite them to make further breaches of the law and order and to subvert the public order. An act by itself is not determinant of its own gravity. In its qua it may not differ from another but in its potentiality it may be very different. Take the case of assault on girls. A guest at a hotel may kiss or make advances to half a dozen chamber maids. He may annoy them and also the management but he does not cause disturbance of public order. He may even have a fracas with the friends of one of the girls but even then it would be a case of breach of law and order only. Take another case of a man who molests women in lonely places. As a result of his activities girls going to colleges and schools are in constant danger and fear Women going for their ordinary business are afraid of being way-laid and assaulted. The activity of this man in its essential quality is not different from the act of the other man but in its potentiality and in its effect upon the public tranquillity there is a vast difference. The act of the man who molests the girls in lonely places causes a disturbance in the even tempo of living which is the first requirement of public order. He disturbs the society and community. His act makes all the women apprehensive of their honour and he can be said to be causing disturbance of public order and not merely committing individual actions which may be taken note of by the criminal prosecution agencies. He disturbs the society and community. His act makes all the women apprehensive of their honour and he can be said to be causing disturbance of public order and not merely committing individual actions which may be taken note of by the criminal prosecution agencies. It means therefore that the question whether a man has only committed a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause a disturbance of the public order is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the act upon the society. The French distinguish law and order and public order by designating the latter as order publique. The latter expression has been recognised as meaning something more than ordinary maintenance of law and order. Justice Ramaswami in writ petition No. 179 of 1988 (SC) drew a line of demarcation between the serious and aggravated forms of breaches of public order which affect the community or endanger the public interest at large from minor breaches of peace which do not affect the public at large. He drew an analogy between public and private crimes. The analogy is useful but not to be pushed too far. A large number of acts directed against persons or individuals may total up into a breach of public order. In Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Vs. State of Bihar and Others, examples were given by Sarkar and Hidayatullah, JJ. They show how similar acts in different contexts affect differently law and order on the one hand and public order on the other. It is always a question of degree of the harm and its effect upon the community. The question to ask is : Does it lead to disturbance of the current of life of the community so as to amount to disturbance of public order or does not affect merely an individual leaving the tranquillity of the society undisturbed? This question has to be faced in every ease on facts. There is no formula by which one case can be distinguished from another." In course of argument petitioner's counsel made a reference to another decision of the apex Court in Dipak Bose alias Naripada Vs. This question has to be faced in every ease on facts. There is no formula by which one case can be distinguished from another." In course of argument petitioner's counsel made a reference to another decision of the apex Court in Dipak Bose alias Naripada Vs. State of West Bengal where it is held : "...Every assault in a public place like a public road and terminating in the death of a victim is likely to cause horror and even panic and terror in those who are the spectator. But that does not mean that all of such incidents do necessarily cause disturbance or dislocation of the community life of the localities in which they are committed...." In a later decision in the case of Wasiuddin Ahmed Vs. District Magistrate, Aligarh, U.P. and Others the view propounded in Arun Ghosh's case (supra) and some other decisions was succinctly referred to for distinguishing 'law and order' and 'public order'. In that case the apex Court observed : ".... The distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' has been brought out succinctly in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Vs. State of Bihar and Others Arun Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal Pushkar Mukherjee and Others Vs. The State of West Bengal, and Nagendra Nath Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal, As to what is meant by 'public order', Hidayatullah. J. (as he then was) said in Ram Monohar Lohia's case (supra) that any contravention of law always affects order but Before it could be said to affect 'public order', it must affect the community or the public at large. He went on to consider the three concepts viz. 'law and order' 'public order' and the security of the State' generally used in preventive detention laws, and indicated that to appreciate the extent and scope of each one of them, we should have three concentric circles, the largest of them representing 'law and order', the next representing 'public order' and the smallest representing 'the security of the State'. An act may affect 'law and order', but not 'public order, just as an act may affect 'public order' but not 'the security of the State'. The true distinction between the areas of law and order and public order lies not merely in the nature or quality of the act but upon the degree and extent of its reach upon the society. The true distinction between the areas of law and order and public order lies not merely in the nature or quality of the act but upon the degree and extent of its reach upon the society. The acts similar in nature but committed in different contexts and circumstances, might cause different reactions. In one case, it might affect specific individuals and, therefore, touches the problem of law and order only, while in another it might affect public order." 7. In the case in hand, the petitioners and their associates alleged to have assaulted, one Bhagawan Sahu without any rhyme or reason at Mentu Chhak, Old Berhampur. The motive for the alleged crime is not borne out from the impugned order. Since the cause for the incident is not known and the effect of the act is not so extensive as to affect considerable members of the society, it cannot be said to have disturbed the public tranquillity or even tempo of the life of the community. Therefore, such an act. In our opinion, cannot be the basis for subjective satisfaction of the authority to pass an order of detention on the ground that it affected the public order, i. e., even tempo of life of the community "which" is the basic requirement for passing order of detention. 8. Coming to the next submission of the petitioners' counsel, we do not subscribe to his views that a single act cannot be considered sufficient to pass an order of detention because of the authoritative pronouncements of the apex Court that a solitary act of omission or commission can be taken into consideration for satisfaction of the detaining authority to pass an order of detention. 9. In view of our discussions made above, and relying upon the series of pronouncements of the Supreme Court referred to above, we are inclined to allow the writ petitions and to quash the order of detention passed against both the petitioners. Accordingly the detention orders are quashed. Petitioners be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. V.A. Mohta, C.J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Allowed