Judgment :- R. Mala, J. In these Habeas Corpus Petitions, the Petitioner as sister of the Detenus, Anandh, Chandru and Sankar @ Kannamma, challenges the orders passed by the 2nd Respondent, whereby the Detenus were detained branding them as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Book-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (in short "Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982). .2. The Detenus had earlier come to adverse notice in two cases, namely crime No.243/20089 under Sections 387 and 506(ii) IPC on the file of Thuvakudi Police Station registered on 012. 2008 and crime No.790/2008 under Sections 294(b), 323 and 324 IPC on the file of Tiruverumbur Police Station registered on 012. 2008. The ground case in crime No.835/2008 under Section 302 @ 302 r/w 114 IPC on the file of Tiruverumber P.S. was registered on the complaint given by one Easwari W/O. Deceased Jayakumar, alleging that 212. 2008 night at about 19.45 hours, when deceased Jayakumar was in his house, the Detenus called him and made quarrel and Chandru stabbed Jayakumar with a knife on his head and Anandh assaulted on his head back with an Aruval. Due to the injuries, Jayakumar died in hospital. On being satisfied that the Detenus have acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order committing crimes of threatening the public on the point of deadly weapons and branding them as a “Goonda” as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Book-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (in short "Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982). 3. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Detenus have involved in two adverse case and one ground case. The first adverse case is in crime No.243/20089 under Sections 387 and 506(ii) IPC on the file of Thuvakudi Police Station and the date of occurrence is alleged to be on on 012. 2008, and the second adverse case is in crime No.790/2008 under Sections 294(b), 323 and 324 IPC on the file of Tiruverumbur Police Station, the date of occurrence is allege to be on 012. 2008. 2008, and the second adverse case is in crime No.790/2008 under Sections 294(b), 323 and 324 IPC on the file of Tiruverumbur Police Station, the date of occurrence is allege to be on 012. 2008. All the two adverse cases are only against the individuals and the ground case is Tiruverumbur P.S. Crime No.835/2008 has been registered under Section 302 @ 302 r/w 114 IPC and the occurrence alleged to have been taken place on 212. 2008. So, there is no public tranquility of public order, breach of law likely to cause disturbs of public order. To substantiate his contention, he relied upon the decisions reported in 2008 STPL(LE)40249 SC (Bhupendra Vs. State of Maharashtra and another) and argued that there is a vast different and in that case, it was decided what is the breach of law and order and public order. He further relied on the decision reported 2005 M.L.J. (Crl.) 612 (Kausalya Vs. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kancheepuram and another) and (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 313 (Darpan Kumar Sharma Alias Dharban Kumar Sharma) and argued that the detaining authority has not applied his mind and passed the detention orders. He further argued that the second adverse case and the ground case are in between the relatives and there was a property dispute between the deceased Jayakumar and the Detenus and so there is no disturbance in law and problem, but the detaining authority has not applied his mind. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to quash the detention order. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the Detenus were involved in two adverse cases and one ground case. The second adverse case and ground case are in between the relatives who is adjacent house owner of the Detenus. Because of the quarrel made in regard to the property dispute, the occurrence have taken place. The ground case has caused tranquility in the minds of public that has happened in a public road and hence the detaining authority has considered all the materials and came to the conclusion and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the detaining authority and thus he prayed for the dismissal of these habeas corpus petitions. .5. The ground case has caused tranquility in the minds of public that has happened in a public road and hence the detaining authority has considered all the materials and came to the conclusion and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the detaining authority and thus he prayed for the dismissal of these habeas corpus petitions. .5. While considering the arguments of both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the first adverse case is against the individual and the second adverse case and the ground case are against the relative to the Detenus is also individual. 6. Inthe first adverse case that has been alleged that on 012. 2008 morning at about 09.00 hours, while one Murugan a resident of Therkumalai, an auto rickshaw driver was in auto stand, the Detenus already known persons got down from a bus and demanded Rs.500 and subsequently, they threatened him. The second adverse case that has been alleged that on 012. 2008, the Detenus closed the main entrance of Jayakumars house and hence Jayakumar preferred a complaint; hence on 012. 2008 at 8.30 hours having aruvals and wooden logs in their hands and assaulted Jayakumar, who is the relative of Detenus. 7. In regard to the ground case, it is stated in paragraph No.3 of the ground of detention as follows: “........ ON 212. 2008 night, at about 19.45 hours, when Jayakumar was in his house, the accused Anandh and his brother Chandru called him out of his house and made unnecessary quarrel. Thirumathi Easwari also followed them to see their activities. After the arrival of her husband Jayakumar out of the house, associate Chandru stabbed Jayakumar with a knife on his head, left rib repeatedly and Anandh assaulted on his head back with an aruval. Jayakumar raised hue and cry. Easwari also raised alarm. On hearing the noise, Palanisami, Kadiravan, Selvendran, Thangamani came to the spot and averted the assault. Due to the succumbed injuries, Jayakumar fell on the ground with pool of blood. Availing the opportunity, Chandru and Anandh decamped along with weapons. Easwari took her husband to the Government Headquarters Hospital with the assistance of Thangamani for hospitalization. The duty medical officer, who was in the hospital examined Jayakumar declared that he is dead. Due to the succumbed injuries, Jayakumar fell on the ground with pool of blood. Availing the opportunity, Chandru and Anandh decamped along with weapons. Easwari took her husband to the Government Headquarters Hospital with the assistance of Thangamani for hospitalization. The duty medical officer, who was in the hospital examined Jayakumar declared that he is dead. He demanded action against them Hence, a case was registered in Tiruverumbur P.S.Cr.No.835/2008 U/S.302 IPC.” In that circumstances, the Detaining authority arrived at the satisfaction, the above said action affects the public, law and order and the Detenus have created alarm and a feeling of the insecurity in the minds of the people of the area, in which the occurrence took place. 8. Here, even though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the occurrence taken place in a public road. On perusal of Observation Mahazar, which enclosed in Page No.41 of Booklet, would show that the occurrence has been taken place in Periyar Street. While perusing the Rough Sketch, which enclosed in Page No.43 of Booklet, it would show that it is only a street not a public road as alleged by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. While perusing F.I.R, which was enclosed in Page No.40 of booklet, it was stated that Detenus Anandh and Chandru took the deceased Jayakumar to the left side of palanichamys house which was situated opposite to Jayakumars house and inflicting injuries on his head and back and at that time, he and her wife had raised alarm, Palanichamy, Kadhiravan, Selvendran and Thangamani came there and prevented them and the Detenus ran away from the place of occurrence. In that nothing has been mentioned that the occurrence has been taken place in the public view and public place and on seeing the occurrence public in the locality were scared and felt insecurity. So, F.I.R., Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch have clearly proved that the occurrence has not taken place in public place. In the above said circumstances, there is no material on record to show that disturbance caused panic to those who were spectators in that place, no one was there except the deceased and his wife. 9. At this juncture, in the decision reported in 2005 M.L.J. (Crl.) 612 (Kausalya Vs. In the above said circumstances, there is no material on record to show that disturbance caused panic to those who were spectators in that place, no one was there except the deceased and his wife. 9. At this juncture, in the decision reported in 2005 M.L.J. (Crl.) 612 (Kausalya Vs. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kancheepuram and Another), it was clearly stated what are the activities would amount only to breach of law and order or likely to cause disturbance of public order would be decided on the following principles: 1) The maintenance of law and order relates to the crimes committed by private individuals. The maintenance of public order relates to the disturbance to the even tempo of life and public tranquility and its effect upon the life of the community in a locality; 2) Every assault in a public place resulting in the death of a victim may cause panic to those who are spectators but that does not mean that the said incident would cause disturbance or dislocation of the community life of the locality, in the absence of material that the act is committed in a public place to cause terror to the people in the locality so that they would be prevented from following their usual avocations; 3) The impact on "public order" and "law and order" depends upon the nature of the act, the place where it is committed and the motive force behind it. If the act is confined to an individual without affecting the tempo of the life of the community, it is a matter of law and order only and it may not fall within the orbit of public order; 4) In order to bring the activity so as to show that it would affect the maintenance of public order, there must be material to show that there has been a feeling of insecurity among the general public; 5) The mere words in the ground of detention would not be sufficient to inject the requisite degree of quality and potentiality to show that the incident was so grave as to disturb the normal life of the community in the locality in the absence of such materials. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely upon the decision reported in 2008 STPL (LE)40249 SC (Bhupendra Vs. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely upon the decision reported in 2008 STPL (LE)40249 SC (Bhupendra Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another) and argued that the Apex Court has laid down the guidelines how the activities of detenu to be breach of law to the public order to be decided. In that, the Apex Court has held as follows: “7. The crucial issue is whether the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to public order. While the expression law and order is wider in scope inasmuch as contravention of law always affects order. `Public order has a narrower ambit, and public order could be affected by only such contravention which affects the community or the public at large. Public order is the even tempo of life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. The distinction between the areas of `law and order and public order is one of the degree and extent of the reach of the act in question on society. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. If a contravention in its effect is confined only to a few individuals directly involved as distinct from a wide spectrum of public, it could raise problem of law and order only. It is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular eruption of disorder that helps to distinguish it as an act affecting public order from that concerning `law and order. The question to ask is: "Does it lead to disturbance of the current life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquility of the society undisturbed?" This question has to be faced in every case on its facts. 8. "Public order" is what the French call order publique and is something more than ordinary maintenance of law and order. The test to be adopted in determining whether an act affects law and order or public order, is: Does it lead to disturbance of the current life of the community so as to amount to disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquility of the society undisturbed? The test to be adopted in determining whether an act affects law and order or public order, is: Does it lead to disturbance of the current life of the community so as to amount to disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquility of the society undisturbed? (See Kanu Biswas v. State of West Bengal ( AIR 1972 SC 1656 ). 9. "Public order" is synonymous with public safety and tranquility: "it is the absence of disorder involving breaches of local significance in contradistinction to national upheavals, such as revolution, civil strife, war, affecting the security of the State". Public order if disturbed, must lead to public disorder. Every breach of the peace does not lead to public disorder. When two drunkards quarrel and fight there is disorder but not public disorder. They can be dealt with under the powers to maintain law and order but cannot be detained on the ground that they were disturbing public order. Disorder is no doubt prevented by the maintenance of law and order also but disorder is a broad spectrum, which includes at one end small disturbances and at the other the most serious and cataclysmic happenings. (See Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and Ors. ( 1966 (1) SCR 709 ). 10. Public Order, law and order and the security of the State fictionally draw three concentric circles, the largest representing law and order, the next representing public order and the smallest representing security of the State. Every infraction of law must necessarily affect order, but an act affecting law and order may not necessarily also affect the public order. Likewise, an act may affect public order, but not necessarily the security of the State. 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. This does not mean that there can be no overlapping, in the sense that an act cannot fall under two concepts at the same time. An act, for instance, affecting public order may have an impact that it would affect both public order and the security of the State. This does not mean that there can be no overlapping, in the sense that an act cannot fall under two concepts at the same time. An act, for instance, affecting public order may have an impact that it would affect both public order and the security of the State. [See Kishori Mohan Bera v. The State of West Bengal ( 1972 (3) SCC 845 ); Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal ( 1969 (2) SCR 635 ); Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal ( 1970 (3) SCR 288 ); Nagendra Nath Mondal v. State of West Bengal ( 1972 (1) SCC 498 ). 11. The distinction between law and order and public order has been pointed out succinctly in Arun Ghoshs case (supra). According to that decision the true distinction between the areas of law and order and `public order is "one of degree and extent of the reach of the act in question upon society". The Court pointed out that "the act by itself is not determinant of its own gravity. In its quality it may not differ but in its potentiality it may be very different". (See Babul Mitra alias Anil Mitra v. State of West Bengal and Ors. ( 1973 (1) SCC 393 , Milan Banik v. State of West Bengal ( 1974 (4) SCC 504 ). 12. 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 in the degree and extent of its reach upon society. Acts similar in nature, but committed in different contexts and circumstances, might cause different reactions. In one case it might affect specific individuals only, and therefore touches the problem of law and order only, while in another it might affect public order. The act by itself, therefore, is not determinant of its own gravity. In its quality it may not differ from other similar acts, but in its potentiality, that is, in its impact on society, it may be very different. 13. The two concepts have well defined contours, it being well established that stray and unorganized crimes of theft and assault are not matters of public order since they do not tend to affect the even flow of public life. 13. The two concepts have well defined contours, it being well established that stray and unorganized crimes of theft and assault are not matters of public order since they do not tend to affect the even flow of public life. Infractions of law are bound in some measure to lead to disorder but every infraction of law does not necessarily result in public disorder. Law and order represents the largest scale within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest circle represents the security of State. "Law and order" comprehends disorders of less gravity than those affecting "public order" just as "public order" comprehends disorders of less gravity than those affecting "security of State". [See Kuso Sah v. The State of Bihar and Ors. ( 1974 (1) SCC 185 , Harpreet Kaur v. State of Maharashtra ( 1992 (2) SCC 177 , T.K. Gopal v. State of Karnataka ( 2000 (6) SCC 168 , State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub ( 1980 (2) SCR 1158 )] and Commissioner of Police v. C. Anita ( 2004(7) SCC 467 ).” While considering the above said citation, there is a distinction between the areas of law and order and public order lies not merely in the nature or quality of the act, but it is one of degree and extent of the reach of the act question upon society. In one case, it may affect the specific individual only and therefore it reaches problem of law and order only. While in another, it may affect public order. But, here the ground case has not affected the public order. In the above said circumstances, while considering the decisions, the occurrence has not taken place in a public road, it is a street in between two rows of houses. In F.I.R. also it was not stated that the occurrence has taken place in a public road. Hence, it will not cause panic and insecurity in the minds of public. So, we are of the considered view that there is no cogent material before detaining authority to come to the conclusion that the act of the Detenus has created panic in the minds of people of particular locality or public in general. 11. Hence, it will not cause panic and insecurity in the minds of public. So, we are of the considered view that there is no cogent material before detaining authority to come to the conclusion that the act of the Detenus has created panic in the minds of people of particular locality or public in general. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also rely upon the decision reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 313 (Darpan Kumar Sharma Alias Dharban Kumar Sharma) and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “Though in the grounds of detention the detaining authority had stated that by committing this offence in public the detenu created a sense of alarm, scare and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public of the area and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order which affected the even tempo of life of the community, but citation of these words in the order of detention is more in the nature of a ritual rather than with any significance to the content of the matter. Thus, a solitary instance of robbery as mentioned in the grounds of detention is not relevant for sustaining the order of detention for the purpose of preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In the above said case, the detenu has involved in three adverse cases under Section 379 IPC. The ground case is that he had committed robbery of Rs.1000/- in point of knife and disturbing even tempo of life of public since the occurrence taken place at Tambaram Railway Station. In that, the Apex Court has held that the detaining authority had stated that by committing this offence in public the detenu created a sense of alarm, scare and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public of the area and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order which affected the even tempo of life of the community. 12. 12. Even though the detaining authority while passing order in paragraph No.4 of the grounds of detention order, he has stated that he was satisfied from the materials placed before him in the ground case committing grave offence in a public place and which cause insecurity in the nearby residential area and traffic area, they have created alarm and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the general public. But while considering the documents F.I.R, Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch enclosed in Page Nos.40, 41 and 43 respectively in the Book let, these would clearly prove that the place of occurrence is only a thar road not a public road. There is no evidence to show that the occurrence has taken place in the public view and public place and on seeing the occurrence, public in the locality were scared and felt insecurity. Moreover, there is no iota of evidence before the detaining authority that by committing the above described grave crime in the nearby residential area and traffic area, they have created alarm and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the general public, where the occurrence took place and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 13. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that there was no cogent material before the detaining authority to come to the conclusion that the Detenus have created a scene of scare and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the community in the locality in which the occurrence had taken place and thereby acting in the manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. 14. As per the decision reported in 2008 STPL(LE)40249 SC (Bhupendra Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another), one crime against the individual and two crimes against the relative, even though in the ground case, the occurrence has taken place in that Road as mentioned in the grounds of detention, it is not create law and order problem and the same is not sufficient for sustaining the order of detention for the purpose of preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. This ground is enough to quash the orders of detention made by the respondents. 15. This ground is enough to quash the orders of detention made by the respondents. 15. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders of detention in Cr.Mp.Nos.06/09 and 05/09 dated 30.01.2009 and Cr.M.P.No.08/2009 dated 08.02.2009, are quashed. The Detenus are directed to be released forthwith, unless their presence is required, in accordance with law, in connection with any other case.