JUDGMENT - S.M. HAJARNAVIS, J.:---In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order of detention passed by the respondent No. 1 under sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) read with Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (26 of 1971) (hereinafter called as the "Act"). The petitioner is a resident of Sion, Koliwada, Bombay, carrying on the business of selling fish. It is his case that there was business rivalry between him and the persons who have made complaints against him and it is on the basis of those reports that some criminal cases were initiated against him by the police and those cases were false and most of them ended in his acquittal. He, therefore, submits that there was no basis for the respondent No. 1 to pass the order of detention against him under the Act. On 10th July, 1974, the petitioner was served with an order bearing No, 74/PCB/1974 dated 10th July, 1974 and that order reads as under :--- "Whereas the Commissioner of Police. Greater Bombay, is satisfied with respect to the person known as Devchand Shankar Koli of Sewree Koliwada, Bombay that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make the following order : Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) read with Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (26 of 1971), the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, directs that the said Devchand Shankar Koli be detained. Sd/- (M. G. Mugve) Commissioner of Police Greater Bombay." Along with this order, he was also served with a copy of Annexure B where it was directed that he would be drained in the Bombay Central Prison at Bombay, and that he would be treated as a Class II security prisoner. Sd/- (M. G. Mugve) Commissioner of Police Greater Bombay." Along with this order, he was also served with a copy of Annexure B where it was directed that he would be drained in the Bombay Central Prison at Bombay, and that he would be treated as a Class II security prisoner. He was also served on the same day with a notice dated 10th July, 1974 incorporating the grounds under section 8 of the Act which reads as follows :--- "ln pursuance of section 8 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, (26 of 1971), Shri Devchand Shankar Koli is hereby informed that the grounds on which a detention order has been made by me on the 10th day of July, 1974, against him under sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) read with Clause (c) of sub- section (2) of section 3 of the said Act, are as follows, namely :--- I. That you are indulging in anti-social, criminal and violent activities in the localities of Sewree Koliwada and the areas adjoining thereto within the limits Bhoiwada Police Station in Greater Bombay. On 9-8-1972 in the afternoon when one Shri Dattatraya Tukaram Patil was sleeping in his room at B. D. D. Chawl No. 6, Sewree you along with your associates went there and called him out. When Shri Dattatraya Tukaram Patil came out of the Chawl, you and your associates pelted soda water bottles at him with the result the said Shri Patil sustained injuries. In this connection a case under section 324-114 I.P.C. was registered against you and your associates at Bhoiwada Police Station G. R. No, 410/72. In this case you were acquitted by the P. M. 29th Court, on 29-11-1973. Prior to this on 1-12-1972 at about 8-30 p.m. the complainant Kumari Manik Shivram Patel was passing along Sewree Fort Road when you along with your associates passed indecent remarks outraging the modesty of the complainant. In this connection a case under section 509-114 I.P.C. was registered at Bhoiwada Police Station vide C.R. No. 663/72. You were arrested and placed from charge-sheet in this case. However, you compromised the matter with the permission of the Court and you were acquitted on 3-12-1973. Thereafter you are continuously indulging in acts of violence which acts are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the aforesaid localities and areas. II. You were arrested and placed from charge-sheet in this case. However, you compromised the matter with the permission of the Court and you were acquitted on 3-12-1973. Thereafter you are continuously indulging in acts of violence which acts are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the aforesaid localities and areas. II. As a result of your activities the peace loving and law abiding citizens are living under a constant shadow or fear which activities of yours are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the said localities and areas. III. The following are the incidents for which you are responsible and which will show that you are continuously indulging in such activities : (i) On the night of 9-1-1972 you along with your associates armed with iron bars, sticks and soda water bottles attacked the house of the complainant Smt. Kashibai Parshuram Koli. In this incident the complainant and two other persons were injured. In this connection a case under section 143-144-145-146-147-148-149 and 321 I. P. C. was registered at Bhoiwada Police Station vide C. R. No. 17/72. In this case you were arrested and the case is subjudice. (ii) On 2-1-1973 the complainant Shri Mohan Anant Vengurlekar and one Pratap Tawade were passing along Sewree Fort Road when you along with your associates stopped the complainant and the witness Pratap Tawade and assaulted them with iron bars and hockey sticks. In this connection a case under section 143-144-145-146-147-148-149 and 32 I. P. C. was registered at Bhoiwada Police Station vide C. R. No. 7/73. In this case you were arrested and the case is subjudice. (iii) On 13-4-1973, the complainant who is the resident of Sewree Koliwada was passing along Jerbai Wadia Road when you along with your associates assaulted him with fist blows with the result the complainant sustained a fracture. In this connection a case under section 325-114 1. P. C. was registered at Bhoiwada Police Station vide G. R. No. 353/73. In this case you were arrested and the case is subjudice. (iv) On 3-10-1973, i.e., the day of Navratra Utsav, the complainant Shri Gajanana Krishna Patil was seeing a movie in the compound of Koli-Samaj Co-operative Housing Society at Sewree Koliwada when you ensued a quarrel with him and in the process you stabbed him with a knife. In this case you were arrested and the case is subjudice. (iv) On 3-10-1973, i.e., the day of Navratra Utsav, the complainant Shri Gajanana Krishna Patil was seeing a movie in the compound of Koli-Samaj Co-operative Housing Society at Sewree Koliwada when you ensued a quarrel with him and in the process you stabbed him with a knife. In this connection a case under section 324-114 I. P. C. was registered at Bhoiwada Police Station vide C. R. 871/73. In this case you were arrested and the case is subjudice. (v) On 5.12.1973 at about 9-30 p.m. one Shri Suresh Pandurang Patil, a resident of Chawl No. 3 behind Housing Society, Sewree Koliwada was assaulted by you and your associates by means of iron bar and further robbed his wrist watch. In this connection a case under section 397-114 I. P. C. was registered at Bhoiwada Police Station vide C. R. No. 1066/73. In this case you were arrested and the case is subjudice. (vi) On 10-3-1974 at about 6-00 p.m. the complainant Shri Tulsi-das Purshottam Wagh, a resident of Sewree Koliwada was attacked by you along with your associates and you stabbed him with a knife. In this connection a case under section 324-114 I. P. C. was registered at Bhoiwada Police Station vide C. R. No. 296/74. In this case you were arrested and the case is subjudice. (vii) On 10-3-1974 at about 8-15 p. m. the complainant Shri Vasudeo Shivram Patil was walking along Port Trust Road. You along with your associate attacked the complainant and assaulted him with a knife. In this connection a case under section 324-114 I.P.C. was registered at Bhoiwada Police Station vide C. R. No. 297/74. In this case you were arrested and the case is subjudice. IV. That in all probability you will continue to commit prejudicial acts of the nature mentioned above. V. If you wish to make a representation against the detention order you should address your representation to the Government of Maharashtra and forward it to that Government through the Superintendent, Bombay Central Prison, Bombay. Sd/- (Seal) ( M.G. Mugve) Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay. Dated the 10th day of July, 1974." It was the case of the petitioner that he wanted to take assistance of his relations for consulting his lawyer in the matter of representation but as he was illiterate he could not make any representation. Sd/- (Seal) ( M.G. Mugve) Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay. Dated the 10th day of July, 1974." It was the case of the petitioner that he wanted to take assistance of his relations for consulting his lawyer in the matter of representation but as he was illiterate he could not make any representation. On 22nd July, 1974, the Government of Maharashtra had confirmed the order of detention and ultimately the matter was placed before the Advisory Board. It was further the case of the petitioner that he was also not able to make representation before the Advisory Board. It is this order of detention is being challenged by the petitioner in this petition. It is the case of the petitioner that most of the grounds are stale and vague. He further urged that the incidents mentioned were cases of individual attacks and most of the cases were started by his business rivals and those cases have also ended in acquittal. Some of the cases were compromised with the permission of the Magistrate showing that they were disputes between individuals and no question of maintenance of "public order" had arisen. The incidents mentioned above could, at the most, be cases involving the law and order and not maintenance of "public order". He further urged that some of the cases were already decided in his favour and yet they were shown as "subjudice". This disclosed non-application of mind by the detaining authority. In paragraph 17 of the return filed by the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 has admitted that out of the two cases referred to in the first ground of the notice, one case had ended in acquittal and the other had been compounded. He also admitted that out of the cases referred to in ground No. 3, three of the cases were pending, two cases have resulted in acquittal and out of the two cases which have ended in acquittal, one case had been shown as subjudice and the other case was decided subsequent to the issue of the notice. He also admitted that one case was stayed at the instance of the prosecution and one was compounded. He, however, stated that the above acts and incidents could be relied upon for passing an order of detention against the detenue as the same have nexus with the public order. He also admitted that one case was stayed at the instance of the prosecution and one was compounded. He, however, stated that the above acts and incidents could be relied upon for passing an order of detention against the detenue as the same have nexus with the public order. It is not possible to accept the submission made on behalf of the respondent No. 1. The order of detention has been passed on 10th July 1974, while most of the incidents mentioned in the grounds are more than a year old. They were also incidents of attacks on individuals and the cases initiated have either ended in acquittal or were compounded with the permission of the Magistrate. The fact that the Magistrate allowed the cases to be compounded clearly shows that no question of "public order" was involved in them. If the question of "public order" would have been there, the prosecution would have objected to the cases being compounded. Nothing has been stated in the return that these matters were compounded because of the pressure exerted by the petitioner. It clearly shows that the compounding of the cases was done voluntarily by the parties. One case has been kept pending by the Magistrate at the instance of the prosecution because it was alleged by the prosecution that the prosecution witnesses were not available. We do not know why the case was pending and why the prosecution did not insist on issuing warrants against the witnesses. It is nowhere alleged that the witnesses were absconding. We do not want to express any opinion on that case but the fact that the prosecution was satisfied with keeping the case pending shows that that was not a case involving the question of maintenance of "public order". We have already stated that most of the grounds were stale involving attacks on individuals. There was no question of any activities of the petitioner prejudicial to the maintenance of "public, order". We have already stated that most of the grounds were stale involving attacks on individuals. There was no question of any activities of the petitioner prejudicial to the maintenance of "public, order". The law on this point has been summarised in the recent decision of the Supreme Court in (Dwarika Prasad Sahu v. The State of Bihar and others)1, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 134 where the Supreme Court has observed :--- "If there is one principle more firmly established than any other in this field of jurisprudence, it is that even if one of the grounds or reasons which led to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is non-existent or misconceived or irrelevant, the order of detention would be invalid and it would not avail the detaining authority to contend that the other grounds or reasons are good and do not suffer from any such infirmity, because it can never be predicated to what extent the bad grounds or reasons operated on the mind of the Detaining Authority or whether the detention order would have been made at all if the bad ground or reason were excluded and the good grounds or reasons alone were before the detaining authority." We have already stated that most of the grounds are stale and do not invoke any question of maintenance of public order. One of the cases was shown to be subjudice, while in fact it had ended in the acquittal of the detenue before the order of the detention was passed. While in the other case which was shown pending, order of acquittal was passed before the order of detention was approved by the State Government and confirmed by the Advisory Board. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the fact of his acquittal in both the cases was brought to the notice of the State Government and the Advisory Board. That being so, the order of detention cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed. In the result, the petition is allowed, the rule is made absolute and the order of detention is quashed and the detenue is set at liberty forthwith if he is not otherwise required. ------