D. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) IN this application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Sadasiv Apat alias Sada who is a detenu under the National Security Act, 1980 has prayed for quashing the detention order of the District Magistrate, Pun dated 10-6-1994 (Annexure-1) and the order of the Govt. of Orissa, Home (Special Section) Department dated 11-8-1994 (Annexure-8) confirming the said order of detention and, to set him at liberty by issuing a writ of habeas corpus. The relevant portion of the ground of detention dated 14-6-1994 communicated to the petitioner (Annexure-A) is extracted hereunder: Take notice that you:sri Sadasiv Apat Sada Sb. Sri Rama Chandra Apat At-Gudia Sahi P. O. Pun Town, Distt. Pun. have been detained under sub-section (2) of section 3, of the N. SA 1980 in the District Jail, Pun to prevent you from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and tranquility. The grounds of your detention are cited below pursuant to section 8 of the said act. That on 9-6-1994 at about 12. 45 p. m. while one Sri Radhakanta Das of Gudia Sahi, Pun Town along with others was playing at Panchayat Jaga near Machha Hata one Santosh; son of his uncle, started shouting there. He asked him to refrain from such activities and sent him to his house. While others were playing jokes with him, he shouted at them and they went away. Sri Das caught hold of one Dilip Apat and took him to his father to intimate him that he is playing jokes with him. While he was taking him to his father, suddenly you being armed with a Farsa without asking him the reason, started abusing him in filthy language and asked Sri Das as to why he caught hold of his nephew. When he asked you as to why you are abusing him in filthy language without knowing the reason, you gave him two slaps. When he tried to protest, you gave a blow with the Farsa which you had in your other hand on his neck. While he bent down his head, if stroke on his head, while you tried to give him the second blow with the Farsa, he started running towards the Bazar shouting for help to save his life. When he tried to protest, you gave a blow with the Farsa which you had in your other hand on his neck. While he bent down his head, if stroke on his head, while you tried to give him the second blow with the Farsa, he started running towards the Bazar shouting for help to save his life. Hearing his hullah, Sri Mahadev Pujapanda, Sri Biswanath Pratihari, Sri Rama Chandra Kothari, Sri Puma Chandra Patra and other came for his rescue. You scolded them in filthy language and threatened them to kill by brandishing the Farsa. As a result, they started running helter and skelter to save their lives. Your such violent activities unleashed terror in the mind of the public and they left that place to save their lives out of fear. The local shop keepers closed down their shops out of fear. The public through fare was completely paralysed. The vehicular traffic on the road was also completely paralysed for some time. Public order and tranquility were seriously jeopardised to a great extent. After this, you left that place. In this connection Pun Town P. S. Case No. 117 dated 9-6-1994 u/ss. 341/294/323/307/ 506, I. P. C. has been registered against you and the same is now under investigation. Besides the above, you are involved in the following case in the past which amply proves how you have been persistently indulging yourself in various antisocial activities causing grave sense of insecurity and fear in the minds of peace-loving people. ( 2 ) THE main thrust of the submission of Shri D. H. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner, was that the allegations made against the petitioner as stated in the ground of detention and the other materials available before the detaining authority only made out a case of law and ordert and not public ordert therefore, the statement in the detention order that the District Magistrate was satisfied that with a view to prevent the petitioner; from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it was necessary to detain him in jail is unsustainable both in law and on facts. ( 3 ) THE learned Addi. Govt. Advocate on the other hand submitted that on the materials available on record, there is scope to interfere with the detention order which was made on the basis of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. ( 3 ) THE learned Addi. Govt. Advocate on the other hand submitted that on the materials available on record, there is scope to interfere with the detention order which was made on the basis of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Elucidating the point, he submitted that the first information Report submitted by Sri Radhakanta Das ,and the statements of Sri Mahadev Pujapanda, Sri Biswanath Pratihari, Sri Rama Chandra Kothari and Sri Puma Chandra Patra recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C. amply substantiate the order of detention made by the District Magistrate. ( 4 ) ON the submission of the learned counsel for the parties as noted above, the question that falls for determination is whether the facts and circumstances of the case make out a case of Tpublic order or merely one of law and order. The meaning of the two terms, the distinction between them and, some of the guidelinest for determining the question have engaged the attention of the apex Court, this Court and other High Courts from time to time. Recently, Division Bench of this Court to which I was a party considered the question in the case of Sankarsan Prdhan v. State of Orissa and another. Therein this Court reforming to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rani Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, Arun Ghose v. State of West Benga, Dipak Bose alias Haripada v. State of West Bengal, and Kuso Sah v. State of Bihar, formulated the following as some of the factors to be home in mind when determining whether the disturbance or disorder amounts to breach of law and order or public order: (1) The contravention of law always affects order, but before if can be said to affect the public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. (2) Public order is the even tempo of the life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. (3) It is the degree of disturbance and its effect on the life of the community in a locality which determine whether that disturbance amounts to breach of law and order or public order. (4) An act by itself is not determinant of its own gravity. In its quality, it may not differ from another, but in potentiality it may be very different. (4) An act by itself is not determinant of its own gravity. In its quality, it may not differ from another, but in potentiality it may be very different. (5) Whether a man has committed breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause disturbance of the public order is a question of degree and the extend of the reach of the act on the society. (6) Every assault in 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 spectators. But that does not mean that all such incidents do necessarily cause disturbance or dislocation of the community life of the localities in which they are committed. (7) It is well established that stray and un-organised crimes of theft and assault are not Mattars of public order since they do not tend to affect the even flow of public life. (8) Whether disturbance or disorder has led to breach of law and public order is a question of fact, in which case there is no formula by which one case can be distinguished from another. In addition to the decisions noted earlier, this Court in its judgment also referred to the cases of State of U. P. v. Harishankar Tewari, Gulab Mehra v. State of U. P. , Subhash Bhandari v. Dist. Magistrate, Lucknow, Smt. Angoori Devi v. Union of India, and Smt. Victoria Fernandes v. Lalmal Sauma, and held: Thus on a close examination of the decisions of the Supreme Court, it can be said that the Supreme Court has taken the view that not only the direct effect but also the potentiality to create indirect effects which are required to be considered and not the other way, as contended on behalf of the petitioners. (See paragraph 12 ). The Court also considered the decisions of this Court in the cases of Pabitra Kumar Sahoo v. State of Orissa, Antaryami alias Antua Sahu v. State of Orissa, and Badal alias Soumyaranjan Mohanty v. State of Orissa, and held that in those cases the Court was not inclined to believe that the acts of the detenu had caused the effects as stated in the ground. In support of the finding this Court referred to the observations of the apex Court in Tukina alias Satyajit Panda v. State of Orissa, and Anua alias Sarot Chandra Singh v. State of Orissai, in which it was held: On the facts of those cases, it was held by this Court that the occurrence in question affected public order. We do not propose to deal on detail with those cases. Suffice it to say that this Court was satisfied that the occurrence in question affected the even tempo of the life of the community at large. On consideration of the ratio of the decisions the Court held that these observations also indicate that if the Court is not satisfied as regards the actual effects caused by the acts of the detenu, then it has to consider the probable effects or effect potentiality of those acts. Testing the facts and circumstances of that case in the light of the principles laid down and the observations made in the decided cases this Court held: We would not have dealt with this contention but for the fact that the learned counsel pressed the same and wanted a decision on the point of law as we were inclined to take the view that the materials placed before the detaining authority in both the cases as regards the effects caused were vague and not credible. The statements consisted of chance witnesses only. There was no credible material to show the actual effects and as to how long they lasted. There was no reliable material to show that the shopkeepers who are stated to-have downed their shutters or the residents of the locality who are stated to have remained indoors were not willing to give their statements. Therefore, the satisfaction of the detaining authority that the acts of the detenu caused disturbance of public order will have to be regarded as bad. ( 5 ) COMING to the case at hand, as noted earlier, the detention order was passed mainly on the First Information Report of Shri Ramakanta Das and the 161 statements of Shri Mohadev Pujapanda, Shri Biswanath Pratihari, Shri Rama Chandra Kothari and Shri Puma Chandra Patra. The said documents are available in the Govt. file which were produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. The said documents are available in the Govt. file which were produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. On perusal of the same, we find that the incident arose out of a quarrel when the first informant was participating in a game in the village and was disturbed by his nephew (maternal uncles son) whom he chastised and sent away; when some other boys present there made fun and cracked jokes at the first informant, he caught hold of the nephew of the detenu (brothers son) and was taking him with a view to make a complaint to his (boy) father; at this stage the detenu is alleged to have intervened, abused and attempted to assault the first informant and when other persons in the locality tried to intervene he threatened them with dire consequence. The entire incident was between two individuals, the first informant and the detenu. It is stated that when other persons including the witnesses were threatened with dire consequences they ran away to their respective homes and the shop keepers downed their shutters due to panic; but there is no credible material in support of the latter. There is also no credible material to show the actual effects and as to how long they lasted. No material was brought to our notice to show that the shop keepers were either not available or were not inclined to make statement in support of the allegations. In our considered view the facts and circumstances the present case make-out a case of only law and order and not Tpublic ordert In that view of the matter, the satisfaction of the detaining authority in that regard has to be held to be bad. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY the writ application is allowed, the detention of the petitioner is quashed and the opposite parties are directed to set him at liberty forthwith unless his detention in jail is required in any other case. Petition allowed.