become a threat and menace to the Society so as to disturb the whole tempo of the society and that all social apparatus is in peril disturbing public order at the instance of such person, it cannot be said that the detenue is a person within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Act. Except general statements, there is no material on record which shows that the detenue is acting in such a manner, which is dangerous to the public order. Now, this brings us to criminal activities of a detenue petitioner, which are said to have taken place on three to four months prior to detention order dated 13/11/2022. Taking the aforesaid incidents and allegations on their face value as they are, it is difficult to comprehend that they were the incidents involving public order. Said incidents were directed against single individual having no adverse effect prejudicial to maintenance of public order, disturbing the tempo of life and peace of the locality. Such casual and isolated incident will hardly have any implication, which will effect the tempo of life so as to jeopardise the public order. So, the acts committed by the petitioner itself are not detriment to his own gravity, but it is potential of the act, which matters. In this connection, it will be fruitful to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Pushker Mukherjee v/s. State of West Bengal [AIR 1970 SC 852], where the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' has been clearly laid down. The Court observed as follows :
