The distinction between law and order and public order is well settled. Public order is the even tempo of the life of the community taking the country as a whole or, even a specified locality. Disturbance of public order is to be distinguished from acts directed against individuals which do not disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public tranquility.

( 1 ) AN order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam, under section 3 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") preventively detaining one Venka Siva Kumar, s/o Prakash Rao, resident of H. B. Colony, Visakhapatnam on the ground that he is a goonda as defined under Section 2 (g) of the Act and with a view to preventing him "from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order", is challenged in this application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the mother of the detenu. A copy of the grounds of detention was served on the detenu enclosing as many as ten documents referred to in the grounds. The grounds of detention mentioned four incidents: (i) on 20-2-1994 at about 8. 30 a. m. , the detenu along with his associates formed into an unlawful assembly at Adarsh Nagar, Visakhapatnam, by arming themselves with deadly weapons and committed the murder of one Pallanti Siva Kumar Ramakrishna prasad and in that connection, Cr. No. 59 /94 was registered under Sections 148, 302,307,324,109 r/ w 149 IPC; (ii) on 25-1-1996 at about 21-45 hours, the detenu along with his associates went to the house of one Kotha Anjaneyulu of Sunder nagar, called him out and poured acid on him and his family members with a view to committing the murder of the said Anjaneyulu since he chastised the detenu before the village elders. A case in Cr. No. 21 /96 in that connection was registered and it is under investigation; (iii) The detenu, while on bail, threatened the family members of the said Anjaneyulu that he will kidnap his daughter and commit rape on her. A complaint in relation to that incident was registered as Cr. No. 33/96 and is under investigation; and (iv) While on bail in cr. No. 21 /96, the detenu again threatened on telephone Smt. Kavitha, the wife of Anjaneyulu that if her husband was not discharged from the hospital, he would kidnap her three daughters and commit rape on them. A case was registered in respect of this incident in Cr. No. 42/96. It is also mentioned in the grounds of detention that the detaining authority has considered the detenu as a habitual criminal, a dangerous and desperate character and that the ordinary provisions of penal law would not be sufficient to deter him from committing violent acts.

( 2 ) SRI Niranjan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has urged the following contentions in support of the invalidity of the detention order: The first incident having taken place more than two years and two months prior to the order of detention has become so stale as not to have any reasonable link with the other three incidents. The acts alleged against the detenu pertain to the sphere of law and order and do not fall within the ambit of public order warranting preventive detention. Incidents 1, 2 and 3 suffer from the vice of vagueness in that the names of the alleged associates of the detenu have not been furnished.

( 3 ) MS. Vijaya Lakshmi, learned Government Pleader, representing the teamed Additional Advocate-General, has made submissions in support of the legality of the order of detention stressing the aspect that in the particular circumstances of the case, the order of detention is justified and there is no warrant for interference.

( 4 ) IT is true that the first incident mentioned in the grounds of detention had taken place on 20-2-1994 whereas the order of detention was made on 5-4-1996 - the interregnum being 2 years, 1 month and 15 days. Citing the observations of a two member Bench of the Supreme Court in Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh vs. MM. Mehta, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, with considerable vehemence, has contended that the long gap itself is sufficient to render the order of detention invalid. We are not inclined to accept. In the above case (1 supra), the gap between two incidents was 16 months. On 24-4-1993, the dete