Judgment R. Regupathi, J. Wife of the detenu challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 12/5/2008, detaining her husband as "Goonda", as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of dangerous activities of Boot leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in the first adverse case, the detenu was convicted under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and he had already undergone the punishment; and that the second adverse case and the ground case have been taken on file against the detenu with reference to two different occurrences that took place on the same day, namely on 8/4/2008, and both the cases are pending investigation and the detenu was arrested on 10/4/2008. By referring to paragraph No.3 of the ground of detention, wherein, it has been mentioned as follows:- "Due to his atrocious activities, the general public was scattered on all directions. The busiest vehicular traffic was affected for sometime.", and adverting to the following observation of the Detaining Authority at paragraph No.5, "If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in future activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order. Further, the recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect to prevent him from involving in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order.", he submits that relevant materials are not available either in the grounds of detention or in the booklet furnished to the detenu so as to substantiate that the detenu has indulged in activities having the potential to affect the "public order"; thus, it is apparent that there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and therefore, the order of detention is vitiated. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on verification of relevant materials including the First Information Report, statement of witnesses in the ground case, etc., submitted that there is no material to substantiate that, in fact, due to the activities of the detenu, the general public scattered on all directions and the busiest vehicular traffic was affected for sometime; thereby, "public order" was put to peril. 4. We have perused the materials available on record and considered the submissions made on either side. 5. 4. We have perused the materials available on record and considered the submissions made on either side. 5. The occurrences pertaining to the second adverse case as well as the ground case took place on 8/4/2008. As per the allegation in the ground case, the detenu fisted the complainant with hand and threatened him while his associates (three in number) by brandishing the knife, took away a cash of Rs.130/-, a cheque for Rs.66, 248/- and a cell phone. Further, the detenu and his associates threatened the complainant not to report the incident to anyone. Insofar as the second adverse case is concerned, on the same day, the detenu and his associates, assaulted and robbed away a sum of Rs.550/- and a cell phone from the complainant. Though the Detaining Authority has stated, "Due to atrocious activities, the general public was scattered on all directions. The busiest vehicular traffic was affected for some time", the materials available would only substantiate that the activities of the detenu affected "law and order" and not "public order". Even as per the narration given by the Detaining Authority with reference to the occurrence, it could be seen that the detenu threatened the complainant not to divulge the incident to anyone, thereby, it could be inferred that the occurrence had taken place at a spot when there is no much public flow. On a careful scrutiny of the materials produced by the sponsoring authority, we hardly find any material to substantiate that the act of the detenu affected the public order and it is apparent that the Detaining Authority applied the usual language as if there arose a problem affecting "public order". In the absence of materials to substantiate that "public order" was adversely affected, we are of the view that there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in making such observations as aforementioned and passing the ultimate order of detention. Had the Detaining Authority considered the "potentiality" of the act of the detenu instead of the "kind", he would not have misled himself in arriving at such conclusion. 6. In a case law reported in Abdul Razak Nannekhan Pathan Vs. Had the Detaining Authority considered the "potentiality" of the act of the detenu instead of the "kind", he would not have misled himself in arriving at such conclusion. 6. In a case law reported in Abdul Razak Nannekhan Pathan Vs. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad And Another (1989) 4 SCC - 43, the Honourable Apex Court observed thus:- "The criminal cases are confined to certain private individuals and it is merely a law and order problem and it has nothing to do with maintenance of public order. Its reach and effect are not so deep as to affect the public at large. It does not create or tend to create any panic in the minds of people of a particular locality or public in general nor it affects adversely the maintenance of public order. An act may create a law and order problem but such an act does not necessarily cause an obstruction to the maintenance of public order." Therefore, 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 problem, but the same need not affect maintenance of public order. A distinction has to be drawn between law and order and maintenance of public order. In order that an activity may be said to affect adversely the maintenance of public order, there must be materials to show that there has been a feeling of insecurity among the general public. It might affect specific individuals only, and, therefore, touches the problem of law and order problem only. Every infraction of law must necessarily affect order, but an act affecting law and order may not necessarily also affect the public order. The true test is not the kind, but the potentiality of the act in question. One act may affect only individuals while the other, though of a similar kind, may have such an impact that it would disturb the even tempo of the life of the Community. 8. The true test is not the kind, but the potentiality of the act in question. One act may affect only individuals while the other, though of a similar kind, may have such an impact that it would disturb the even tempo of the life of the Community. 8. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that there was no sufficient material available with the detaining authority to substantiate that the detenu created a scene of scare and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the Community in the locality; thereby, there was disturbance to the public order and the even tempo of the life of the public has been affected. The detaining authority, without application of mind, mechanically passed the impugned order and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 9. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention passed by the second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.16 of 2008 dated 12/5/2008 is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case or cause.