U. S. TRIPATHI, J. The above two writ petitions have separately been filed by each of the petitioners challenging their detention order dated 14-9-2002 passed by District Magistrate, Varanasi under Section 3 (2) of National Security Act. 2. Along with the detention order the petitioner was served with grounds of detention, which disclosed that on 12-7-2002 one Ram Narain Giri R/o Laxmi Kund, P. S. Laxa, District Varanasi along with his sons Raj Kumar Giri and Manoj Giri @ Sonu was returning to his house after seeing Rathyatra Mela. When the above persons reached behind Laxmi Kund Vyayamsala on the Chabootara of Kund, the petitioner Gappu Yadav, Kittu @ Santosh Gupta, Santosh Pathak Raju @ Rajesh Mishra and Lalu all armed with illicit arms surrounded them in a pre-planned manner. On account of old enmity Raju @ Rajesh and Lalu exhorted and on their exhortation petitioners Kittu @ Santosh Gupta, Gappu @ Virendra Yadav and Santosh Pathak with an intent to kill Ram Narain fired on him by their respective arms. Raj Kumar, in order to save his life, ran, but after few steps he fell down in the lane. The above incident was committed by the petitioners and their associates at about 9. 30 p. m. On account of Rathyatra Mela there was great rush on the spot and street lights were on. Several persons saw the occurrence in the street light. On account of incident committed in dare devil manner by the petitioners and their associates the persons on the road started running helter shelter leaving their conveyances. The people of the locality closed their doors, windows and shutters. Due to stampede several persons attending mela were injured. However, Ram Narain took his injured son Raj Kumar to P. S. Laxa where he lodged written report on the basis of which a case at Crime No. 81 of 2002 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC was registered. The injured Raj Kumar was sent to S. S. P. G. Hospital Kabir Chaura for medical aid. Huge amount of blood two empty cartridges and one bullet of 315 bore were found on the spot. Condition of Raj Kumar was precarious, therefore, he was brought to Singh Medical Research Center, Maldahiya. Dying declaration of the inured was recorded at 10-25 p. m. who stated about the role and involvement of the petitioners. Huge amount of blood two empty cartridges and one bullet of 315 bore were found on the spot. Condition of Raj Kumar was precarious, therefore, he was brought to Singh Medical Research Center, Maldahiya. Dying declaration of the inured was recorded at 10-25 p. m. who stated about the role and involvement of the petitioners. Again dying declaration of the injured was recorded by the Additional City Magistrate, 1st at 0010 a. m. on 13-7-2002. Ultimately injured Raj Kumar died in Singh Medical and Research Institute. Maldahiya on 13-7-2002 on 1. 45 a. m. Accordingly, the case was altered under Section 302 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. Enraged with the incident the people of the locality, in retaliation started raising slogans against the administration and blocked Godaulia Rath Yatra road. However, they were pacified and blockade was removed. The people of the locality were so terrorized and fear stricken that several political leaders led pressure on the police to arrest the petitioners and their associates and they also blocked Laxa Tri Crossing. In this connection a case at Crime No. 83 of 2002 under Section 341 IPC was registered at P. S. Laxa. Public order was adversely affected on account of incidents in question. The news of incident was elaborately published in daily news papers on 13-7-2002, which again affected public order. 3. The petitioners were in jail in connection with Case Crime No. 81 of 2002 and they were trying to get released on bail. The bail application was also filed through their counsel in the Courts at Varanasi, there was real possibility of the petitioners being released on bail and after release the petitioners would again indulge in similar activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On the above grounds the District Magistrate was satisfied that detention of the petitioners was necessary for the maintenance of public order. 4. Both the petitions are connected with each other and common question of fact and law are involved in it. Therefore, both the petitions are being disposed of by a common order with the consent of parties learned Counsel. 5. Heard Sri I. M. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner Gappu @ Varendra Gupta and Sri Samir Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner Kittu @ Santosh Gupta, learned A. G. A. and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 6. 5. Heard Sri I. M. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner Gappu @ Varendra Gupta and Sri Samir Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner Kittu @ Santosh Gupta, learned A. G. A. and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 6. The petitioners had challenged their detention order on various ground, but the learned Counsel for the petitioners raised only one point that the petitioners were detained on a solitary incident, which was only law and order problem and could be dealt with easily under the Penal Law and that the incident in question had no impact or effect on public order. 7. Word "public order" and "law and order" have been explained by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Angoori Devi for Ram Ratan v. Union of India and others, 1989 JIC 281 (SC) : 1989 (26) ACC 1 (SC) as below: "the impact on "public order" and "law and order" depends upon the nature of the act, the place where it is committed and motive force behind it. If the act is confined to an individual without directly or indirectly affecting the tempo of the life of the community, it may be a matter of law and order only. But where the gravity of the act is otherwise and likely to endanger the public tranquility, it may fall within the orbit of the public order. This is precisely the distinguishing feature between the two concepts. Sometimes, as observed by Vakatachaliah. J. In Ayya alias Ayub v. State of U. P. , "what might be an otherwise simple `law and order situation might assume the gravity and mischief of a public order problem by reason alone of the manner or circumstances in which or the place at which it is carried out. "necessarily, much depends upon the nature of the act, the place where it is committed and the sinister significance attached to it. " 8. Again in the case of T. Devaki v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, 1990 (1) JIC 832 (SC) : (1990) 2 SCC 456 , the Apex Court held as below: "any disorderly behaviour of a person in the public or commission of a criminal offence is bound to some extent affect the peace prevailing in the locality and it may also affect law and order but the same need not affect maintenance of public order. There is basic difference between `law and order and `public order. The question whether a man has only committed a breach of law order or has acted in a manner likely to cause disturbance of the public order, is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the act upon the society. 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 providing for preventive detention. Such a solitary incident can only raise a law and order problem and no more. " 9. In the light of above tests of we consider the incident in question given in the grounds of detention, it would appear that the incident took place in the night at about 9. 30 p. m. near Laxmi Kund Pokhara. It is also mentioned in the grounds of detention that above incident took place on account of previous enmity with the deceased and his family members. The materials on record also disclosed that prior to the incident in question Raj Kumar has slapped Gappu Yadav and the petitioners and their associates committed the above occurrence in order to take revenge. 10. No doubt, it is mentioned in the grounds of detention that on account of incident people of the locality and passer bye on the road started running helter shelter and persons of the locality closed their doors. windows and shutters. But every incident has some effect on the locality and observing incident the people start running to save their lives specially when fire arms are used in the incident. But on account of it alone that incident cannot be said to have affected public order. As observed by the Apex Court in the case referred to above. 11. Learned A. G. A. contended that on account of incident several persons blocked road and raised slogans against the administration and also led pressure to arrest the petitioners and their associates. But on account of it the incident in question cannot be treated affecting public order because the retaliation of public on any incident is but natural and if the victim of the incident has some political patronage, politicians may also come to his rescue. But on account of it the incident in question cannot be treated affecting public order because the retaliation of public on any incident is but natural and if the victim of the incident has some political patronage, politicians may also come to his rescue. The incident was allegedly committed by the petitioners and their associates in the night when they got occasion to commit the same. Thus, the manner in which the incident was committed also shows that it was simply a law and order problem. The subsequent act of the people of the locality i. e. blockade roads and laying pressure on the District Administration were independent acts and therefore, we are of the view that the incident in question was a solitary incident and affected only law and order, problem and has no effect or impact on public order as it could easily be dealt with under the prevalent Penal Law. 12. Since the incident in question was purely a law and order problem, there was no justification for the detaining authority to detian the petitioners under National Security Act. The detention order thus is illegal and invalid. 13. Both the petitions are, accordingly, allowed. The detention orders of the petitioners are held illegal and it is directed that they shall be released forthwith unless wanted to be detained in connection with some other case. Petition allowed. .