JUDGMENT Hon’ble K.K. Misra, J.—In all the above three writ petitions, the impugned detention orders dated 13.9.05 passed by the District Magistrate, Hamirpur have been challenged. The impugned detention orders were passed on the basis of one and the same incident, hence all the above three writ petitions are disposed of by a common order. 2. It is stated in the grounds of detention, Annexure-2 to the petition, that on 30.7.05, the petitioner Naseem Ahmad along-with other accused persons armed with fire-arms, Kulhari, Banka etc. fired indiscriminately upon one Randhir Singh when he reached near the Chabutara of temple for worship. It is further stated that when he entered the room near the temple to save his life, the accused persons chased him and killed him with Kulhari and Banka. The accused persons dragged his dead body and threw outside the temple. The accused persons shouted aloud to cut the dead body in pieces and threatened all others of the same consequences. To create an atmosphere of terror and panic, they fired towards the people present there, as a result of which the people present there shut the doors and windows of their houses and remained inside. When a Scheduled Caste lady Vimla Sonkar tried to see outside opening the window, the accused persons entered her house after breaking the door and fired upon her. She fell down in the courtyard after being seriously injured. After the cold blooded murder, they searched for Balwan Singh alias Raju Singh for killing him who had hidden himself to save his life in the house constructed in new plot. The accused persons then threw the burning cylinder after breaking the door and wall. Then they fired upon Mangal Singh alias Abhishek Singh. They fired repeatedly to create atmosphere of terror and fear. Some other persons of the locality were also injured by their indiscriminate firing. Calm resembling cremation ground prevailed in the area due to this incident and public life was paralyzed. No one could dare to come out of his house for half an hour and the public order was completely disturbed. An F.I.R. in this regard was filed as case crime No. 499 of 2005 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 452 and 34, IPC at P.S. Sumerpur, District Hamirpur. Later on, injured Vimla Sonkar also died. No one could dare to come out of his house for half an hour and the public order was completely disturbed. An F.I.R. in this regard was filed as case crime No. 499 of 2005 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 452 and 34, IPC at P.S. Sumerpur, District Hamirpur. Later on, injured Vimla Sonkar also died. This incident of double murder caused great sensation and atmosphere of fear and terror prevailed in the township of Sumerpur and other adjoining localities. Higher administrative and police authorities visited the place of occurrence and additional police force and armed police forces had to be deployed to maintain public order in the locality and to restore confidence of the people. The news of this incident got wide coverage in the local newspapers. On these facts, the District Magistrate, Hamirpur thought it fit to pass impugned detention orders against the petitioners. 3. We have heard Sri Salamuddin Khan for the petitioners and Sri Arvind Tripathi, A.G.A. for the State in all the three writ petitions. None appeared for the Union of India in H.C. Writ Petition No. 3 of 2006. Sri J.P. Singh appeared for the Union of India in H.C. Writ Petition No.75202 of 2005 and Sri G.G. Tripathi appeared for the Union of India in H.C. Writ Petition No.75204 of 2005. 4. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that from a perusal of the grounds of detention, it becomes clear that only one incident has been mentioned therein which was a result of personal enmity relating to land dispute. He further argued that the crime was committed against a particular person, and not against the public at large and, therefore, it is a question of law and order only and it had nothing to do with the public order. 6. On the other hand, Sri Arvind Tripathi, learned A.G.A. argued that the act of the petitioners was so barbaric and daring that the incident and its effect was clearly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and even tempo of the society was completely disturbed. The incident took place in broad day light. Additional forces had to be deployed in the locality to maintain public order and restore confidence of the general public. The incident took place in broad day light. Additional forces had to be deployed in the locality to maintain public order and restore confidence of the general public. An innocent S.C. woman was also not spared by the petitioners and she succumbed to the injuries later on. Some other persons also sustained injuries in the incident. All these facts show that the aim of the petitioners was to create terror in the area and register their muscle power in the area. 7. The only question for consideration is whether the act of the petitioners was such that it created panic and terror in the locality and it was of such magnitude that it disturbed the public order in the locality, or it was simply a law and order problem. 8. A perusal of the grounds of detention shows that the petitioners acted in most henious and daring manner. The petitioners not only in pre-planned planned manner killed the informant’s brother who was going to worship in the temple but also fired upon other persons who dared to see the incident as a result of which a S.C. woman suffered injuries who later on succumbed to her injuries. The brother of the informant was also attacked and a burning cylinder was thrown in the room where he had hidden. Some other persons also sustained injuries in the incident. The petitioners killed the informant’s brother by firing and cutting him into pieces openly in the early morning. 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 would fall within the orbit of the public order. 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. 9. Indeed, the intensity of the complained act and its impact on the society has to be considered to ascertain as to whether it is a question of law and order or public order. Necessarily, much depends upon the nature of the act, the place where it is committed and the sinister significance attached to it. 9. Indeed, the intensity of the complained act and its impact on the society has to be considered to ascertain as to whether it is a question of law and order or public order. It has to be considered as to what was the reach of the incident on the society. From a perusal of the grounds of detention, we find that the petitioners not only killed informant’s brother but also fired upon a woman who dared to see the incident from the window and later on she also succumbed to her injuries. The informant was also attacked and some other persons also sustained injuries in the incident. The petitioners fired indiscriminately and threatened all around to scare them by cutting the informant’s brother in pieces. Fear stricken people shut the doors of their houses. An atmosphere of terror prevailed in the area. Higher administrative and Police authorities visited the place of incident and additional police force and armed police forces were deployed to maintain public order and restore confidence of the people. The manner of committing the crime was so daring and barbaric that it had certainly its reach on general public. It is further to be added that because of enmity alone an incident cannot be termed as of law and order, particularly when a person who was simply a watcher of the incident was also killed. It is well settled that if a crime had its effect on a large number of people, then only on the account of the fact that it was committed due to enmity, it will not come under the purview of law and order. Therefore, we hold that the incident gave rise to the maintenance of public order and the District Magistrate, Hamirpur rightly passed the impugned detention orders dated 13.9.05 against the petitioners. 10. In the result, all the three petitions fail and are dismissed. Petitions Dismissed. ———