HANSARIA, C. J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has been detained with the aid of S. 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention order was passed on 10-1-1991 and is based on the following solitary incident:-"you along with your associate Chagala came in a scooter on 8-1-91 around 9-15 p. m. and attacked one Rajendra Kumar Behera of Madhupatna with sword and Bhujali on the National Highway in front of Samrat Cinema Hall and your associate snatched away the bag containing a cash of Rs. 10,525/- from him. When the victim resisted and shouted aloud, you brandished the sword, abused him and threatened with dire consequences. You and your associate Chagala brandished sword and Bhujaii on the National Highway and created a situation of terror and panic. Out of consternation, the victim was running away to save his life. At that point of time you and your associate chased him and threatened to kill by sword and Bhujali anybody who would come forward to help him. The violent activities, utterances and fearful gestures of yours and your associate created a dreadful scene there. The people on the National Highway ran hither and thither to save their lives. The shop-keepers on either side of the National Highway closed down their shops out of panic. The traffic on the National Highway came to a halt. By your violent and anti-social act you jeopardised public peace, order and tranquillity of the locality. No one ventured to offer resistance as your act created a feeling of terror that anybody present can be the target of your attack. This incident relates to Madhupatna P. S. Case No. 11 dated 8-1-91 u/ S. 392, IPC. "

( 2 ) THE validity of the impugned order has been assailed on the following grounds.- (1) the allegation made against the petitioner makes out a case, at best, of breach of law and order and not public order, (2) there is no material that the petitioner has tendency to repeat the act in question because of which his detention was called for; (3) the detaining authority had not applied its mind about the invocation of the ordinary law of the land by way of prosecuting the petitioner to be sufficient to meet the exigency of the situation; and (4) the detaining authority had not informed the petitioner that he had right to represent to the State Government, the Central Government and the Advisory Board.

( 3 ) WE may examine the aforesaid submissions made by Shri Mohapatra seriatim. As to the first contention, it may be stated that the distinction between "law and order" and "public order" has come up for determination before the Apex Court in a number of cases. On the basis of decided cases, it may be stated that stray and unorganised crimes of theft and assault are not matters of public order since they do not tend to affect the even flow of public life. As stated in Kuso Shah v, State of Bihar, AIR 1974 SC 156, infractions of law are bound in some measure to lead to disorder, but every infraction of law does not necessarily result in public disorder. As observed in Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 852: (1970 Cri LJ 852), a line of demarcation must be drawn between serious and aggravated forms of disorder which directly affect the community or injure the public interest and relatively minor breaches of peace of purely local significance which primarily injure specific individuals and only in a secondary sense public interest. In Ram Ranjan Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 609 (1975 Cri LJ 588), it was reiterated that if the contravention in its effect is confined only to a few individuals directly involved as distinguished from a wide, spectrum of public, it would raise a problem of law and order only.

( 4 ) THE aforesaid decisions and some others were noted by a Bench of this Court in Pabitra Kumar Sahoo v. State of Orissa, (1988) 65 CLT 416: (1989 Cri LJ 360) and it was held that a solitary act whic