JUDGMENT - N. ARUMUGHAM, J.:---The petitioner, himself, is the detenu. The petitioner impugned the order of detention passed by Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai - the 1st respondent - on 28-11-1997, Vide D.O. No. 94/PCB/DP/Zone-VIII/1997, detaining the petitioner by virtue of section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Person Act, 1981, (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996). The detention order, confirmation of the detention order and the grounds of detention shown in Exhibits 'A', 'B' and 'C', were admittedly served upon the detenu contemporaneously on 2-1-1998. 2. The clamping of the detention order against the detenu was based on the following prejudicial activities of the detenu. On 7-6-1997, at about 11.45 a.m. one Miss Maya Lalji Shirodkar, a household woman, residing at room No. 1, Lalji Chawl, Jawahar Nagar, Saibaba Road, Khar (East), Mumbai-51, was proceeding towards market along Arya Samaj Ganeshotsav Mandal along with her brother Ghanshyam. The detenu and his associates accosted them and said as under :- "rqyk dk; u ;kp pkaxyk ykxrks dk; \ vkep;kr deh vkgs vkeP;k cjkscj py-" and by saying so, the detenu pulled her hair and his associate Prakash caught hold of her breast and started pulling her. During the scuffle, buttons of her punjabi dress were broken. As she started shouting, another associate by name Pakya slapped her. At that time, the petitioner/detenu exhorted her by saying : "fgyk ukxMh djk o iD;k fgP;k Hkokyk /k.;kyk ?ksÅu ;s Eg.kts R;kyk dGsy-" and associate of the detenu went away and brought her brother. As her brother tried to rescue her from the clutches of the detenu and his associates, Pakya first blow to her brother. At that time, another associate, by name, Uday Mane uttered as under :- "fg u ;kph jkaM vkgs- o fgp R;kyk [kcj nsrs-" On hearing this, the detenu and his associate Pakya fisted her and her brother and exhorted her saying : "tj iksfylkr rdzkj dsfyl rj gkrik; rksMqu Vkdhu-" and all then went away. Thereafter, Kumari Maya Lalji Shirodkar approached Nirmal Nagar Police Station along with her brother Ghanshyam Lalji Shirodkar and reported the incident. Thereafter, Kumari Maya Lalji Shirodkar approached Nirmal Nagar Police Station along with her brother Ghanshyam Lalji Shirodkar and reported the incident. Her statement was recorded and a case vide C.R.No. 133 of 1997 in Nirmal Nagar Police Station for the offence under sections 354, 509, 504, 506(II) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the detenu and his associates. Both, the girl and her brother were sent to Dr. V.H. Desai Hospital for medical treatment and the investigation was, thus, started and their statements were recorded which would reveal that the detenu and his associates Prakash Dube and Uday Mane are criminals from the localities of Jawahar Nagar, Saibaba, Road, Ambewadi, Golibar Fish Market, Shantilal Compound, Khar (East), Mumbai and so on. They are also involved in a number of cases registered at Nirmal Nagar Police Station. The torn punjabi dress of the said lady was also recovered under the panchanama by the police concerned. Both the detenu and his associate, by name Uday Mane were arrested on 13-6-1997 as well as 9-6-1997 respectively and that they were produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court, Bandra, Mumbai, for remand and that on 13-6-1997 they were released on bail inspite of objections raised by the police strongly. After completion of investigation in the instant case, a charge-sheet was filed on 19-9-1997 against the detenu and his associates before the 32nd Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, Mumbai which was taken on file vide Court Case No. 1689/P/97. 3. Confidential enquiries were also made which disclosed that the detenu along with his associates were indulging in nefarious and criminal activities persistently and had victimised numerous people in the areas of Teen Bungalow, Jawahar Nagar, Saibaba Road, Adarsha Lane, Ambewadi, Maratha Colony, Huse in Tekdi, Golibar Fish Market, J.P. Road, Khar (East), Mumbai and its adjoining area. However, the victims are mentally afraid of to complain and to make statements against them openly. Only on the assurance of anonymity that they would not be called upon to depose in the Court of law or any other open forum to make statement against the detenu and by adopting that process only some of the witnesses expressed their willingness to make their statements in camera. 4. Only on the assurance of anonymity that they would not be called upon to depose in the Court of law or any other open forum to make statement against the detenu and by adopting that process only some of the witnesses expressed their willingness to make their statements in camera. 4. Accordingly, a statement of witness 'A' was recorded on 8-9-1997 which would reveal that he knows the detenu and his associate Uday Mane as criminals from the localities of the above referred areas. The detenu and his associates created terror at the point of deadly weapons, such as, sword, chopper, knife in the above said vicinity. They collect Hafta regularly and extort money from businessmen, hawkers and traders of the above locality. According to him, the detenu made use of his S.T.D. booth styled as "Sai Communication" for his criminal activities and that they used to take persons on task who resist to fulfill the money demand of the detenu and his associates from the said place and assault them and that they have indulged in committing heinous crimes, such as, attempt to commit murder, outrage the modesty of women and so on, and due to the above abnormal activities, nobody would come forward to lodge a complaint. 5. During the 2nd week of August, 1997 at about 11 a.m., when witness 'A' was in his house, the detenu and his associate, by name, Uday Mane, armed with sword and chopper respectively, along with two other associates, entered in his shop with weapons in their hands and on seeing this the customers from the shops, pedestrians and hawkers on the road, ran away; nearby shopkeepers were closed down shutters, and the witness was also about to run away, but he was dealt with sword on the table and kicked on his leg and made him to seat. Uday Mane, associate of the detenu, exhorted him the following : "eknjpksn xVkjh es bruk dek;k py gekjk fgLlk fudky-" By saying so, detenu and his associate Uday Mane assaulted the witness and robbed Rs. 2,000/- from his cash book and went away. Uday Mane, associate of the detenu, exhorted him the following : "eknjpksn xVkjh es bruk dek;k py gekjk fgLlk fudky-" By saying so, detenu and his associate Uday Mane assaulted the witness and robbed Rs. 2,000/- from his cash book and went away. While leaving the said place, the detenu exhorted him the following : "mn;k 'ŒŒŒ@ :i;s ekÖ;k vM;koj ikBo ukgh rj nkjkr ;sÅu xGQkl ykoqu ekjsu" Uday Mane, associate of the detenu also exhorted him as under :- "dkQj dh vkSykn vxj iqfyl ds ikl tk;sxk rks iqjk nqdku tyk nqWaxk-" 6. Witness 'B' lady in her statement has stated that on 10-9-1997, the detenu and his associate Uday Mane as criminals from the locality always came armed with deadly weapons, used to extort money and collect hafta from hawkers, businessmen, residents and traders of the localities and incline to commit offences, such as, attempt to commit murder, assault, criminal intimidation, robbery lotting, outraging the modesty of women. On the last week of July 1997 at about 8.30 p.m. when witness 'B' was approaching her residence along Pyasa Hotel, the detenu and his associate pursued her by passing vulgar remarks and as she started running towards Golibar Fish Market and turned in a Chawl, the detenu put his hand on her neck and his associate Uday Mane remained at the entrance of the said Galli holding knife in his hand. When the witness shouted for help, Uday Mane, associate of the detenu, exhorted the following :- "x.ks'k Hkkà gS dksà vkxs cMsxk rks dkV nsaxs-" with the result that nobody has come forward for her rescue. She has stated that she had been molested by the detenu. Then the detenu and his associated exhorted the following :- "vkeP;k cjkscj vkyh ukfgl rj rqÖ;k ?kjkr ;sÅu rqÖ;k vkÃckikP;k leksj mpyûu ussÃu] tj iksfylakr rdzkj dsfyl rj ftoar Bso.kkj ukgh-" Thus, the witness got terribly frightened and due to fear she did not dare to lodge a complaint against the detenu and his associates or anybody, 7. Then the detenu and his associated exhorted the following :- "vkeP;k cjkscj vkyh ukfgl rj rqÖ;k ?kjkr ;sÅu rqÖ;k vkÃckikP;k leksj mpyûu ussÃu] tj iksfylakr rdzkj dsfyl rj ftoar Bso.kkj ukgh-" Thus, the witness got terribly frightened and due to fear she did not dare to lodge a complaint against the detenu and his associates or anybody, 7. Witness "C", in her statement recorded in camera, referred the incident particularly happened at about 21.25 hours in the first week of July, 1997 to the extent that when she was proceeding towards her residence along Saibaba Road, the detenu caught hold of her hand and pulled her towards him and saying as under :- "rq Lor%yk dk; 'kgk.kh letrsl dk; rq>h vkt d:up Vkdrks-" Then the detenu and his associate Uday Mane started molesting her. As she shouted for help, the detenu whipped out his knife and held it on her stomach and exhorted her saying :- "mBko lkyhdks vkt bldks pksnds gh jgsaxs-" At this juncture, when somebody was approaching, the detenu and his associate left her. Taking advantage of the opportunity, the witness "C" ran away to her residence but due to fear of reprisal at the hands of the detenu, she did not lodge complaint to anybody. 8. In a similar fashion, witness "D" incorporated his statement recorded in camera with witnesses "A", "B" and "C" and he has further narrated prejudicial activities of the detenu that happened at about 10.30 a.m. during the first week of August, 1997. When he was sitting on the counter of his bakery, the detenu and his associate Uday Mane and one more associate of the detenu approached him and exhorted him as under :- ""D;ksa cs ykaMs gIrk ysus ds fy;s eq>s vkuk iMrk gS] py vHkh 90]000@ :i;k fudky" and Uday Mane, associate of detenu chopped the glass of Bakery show case with chopper resulting in attention of the people was attracted and hawkers on the road and pedestrians started running helter-skelter. This witness was assaulted by the detenu and his associates with kicks and fists and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was removed forcibly from the witness and cash box out of sheer threat and terror. 9. This witness was assaulted by the detenu and his associates with kicks and fists and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was removed forcibly from the witness and cash box out of sheer threat and terror. 9. As having been placed the above specific overtacts of the detenu and his associates and the prejudicial activity varies in number clearly affecting the public order in the locality of the Brihan Mumbai above referred and after having carefully perused, the 1st respondent-the Commissioner of Police has arrived at subjective satisfaction that every prejudicial activities of the detenu affects the very normal public life and in order to prevent him in indulging further, he has clamped the order of detention as above referred which along with grounds of detention and documents relied upon, were executed and served upon the detenu on 2-1-1998, which order is being challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the detenu himself. 10. The 1st respondent - Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai and Mr. V.B. Sankhe, Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai and Mr. S.C. Bhagure, Jailor Group-II, Nasik Road Central Prison, Nashik, have filed their sworn Returns repudiating each and every one of the grounds raised in the writ petition and thus they have denied everything. 11. We have heard the rival submissions from the Bar for the respective parties. 12. Mr. Nitin Sejpal, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has confined his argument and contentions with ground Nos. (viii) and (ix) of the writ petition, though the present writ petition is directed on several grounds. He would contend that there was a considerable delay of more than five months in passing the order of detention by the 1st respondent against the detenu, for , the alleged prejudicial activities referred to in the grounds of detention were during the month of July and September, 1997. The other contention, raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that as neither of the incidents spelt out in the grounds of detention came within the ambit of the concept "public order", the impugned order of detention would become clearly vitiated and that, therefore, the writ petition has to be allowed. The other contention, raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that as neither of the incidents spelt out in the grounds of detention came within the ambit of the concept "public order", the impugned order of detention would become clearly vitiated and that, therefore, the writ petition has to be allowed. One another contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there was a delay in execution of the detention order which also goes to the root of the case and that, therefore, he persuaded us to consider the said grounds, though he has not raised the same either as one of the grounds in the writ petition, but he has raised the same during the course of the argument. 13. Controverting the said contentions made by and on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Rajiv Patil, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, endeavored to submit that since one and the only incident relied upon in the grounds of detention had occurred at about 11.45 p.m. on 7-6-1997 in public street which is a public place and the detenu and his associates had indulged in to outrage the modesty of women by attacking them with their lethal weapons, as well as his brother both treated subsequently and the place of one is a public place in that locality the very propensity and potentiality of the criminal activities of the detenu would definitely affect or reach the segment of the society of that area and people, and that therefore the very said activities of the detenu and his associates would come within the ambit of 'public order' and that it is not at all possible to confine the same between the detenu and the lady as individual to bring the purview of within the concept of 'law and order'. It is to be noted that an attempt made by a person i.e. associate of the detenu to attack unmarried girl along with his brother on a public street and tried to outrage her modesty by uttering filthy language, clearly amounts to public order, in our view, for the reason that atrocity being committed to women folk in-public street would clearly go to and reach that section of the society who are neighbours of the locality in which the incident has taken place. Warrant this single incident, the incidents narrated by witnesses 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' through their statements recorded in camera, would clinchingly go to show abnormal and extraordinary character and attitude being adopted by the detenu and his associates in terrorising general public and particularly the business community and women folk of the society in public place. Thus, it is seen that the gamut of every incident referred to in the grounds of detention clearly comes within the ambit of public order. The very facts of the detenu would attract the prejudicial activities which could and should be curbed out or at least prevented by the authorities by clamping the detention order as provided by law. 14. The one incident directly reported by Ms. Maya Lalji Shirodkar, was registered as Crime No. 133 of 1997 for the offence under sections 354, 509, 504, 506(II) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code which had merged into a Court Case No. 1689/P/97 and the other four incidents were clearly spoken by the witnesses. A, B, C, and D all happened during the months of July and September, 1997. 15. Consequent to this, it is to be noted that Nirmal Nagar Police Station, within whose jurisdiction all the incidents above referred to had happened, has sponsored clamping of detention order against the detenu even in the month of September, 1997 which, after due process by various stages and after arrival at subjective satisfaction by the 1st respondent detaining authority the order of detention was clamped on 28-11-1997. Therefore, after having perused the relevant documents referred to in the Index appended to the grounds of detention and various dates of incidents, we are at every difficulty to countenance the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was an inordinate delay of nearly five months in clamping the detention order and that, therefore, the said contention has no force or merit at all. 16. 16. With regard to other contentions, having gone through the gamut of the incidents which were created by the detenu and his close associates with lethal weapons in their hands in public places, either in the evening or in the broad day light, but particularly in a public place as pointed out in the grounds of detention, the people of the locality, particularly the lady class masses, business community and others were terrified from the prejudicial activities of the detenu and his associates and to this extent after carefully considered all the above, we are constrained to hold that every incident of occurrence said to have been committed by the detenu and his associates has come clearly within the ambit of public order as defined by the Act itself. 17. Concedingly, Mr. Nitin Sejpal has not raised the third ground, viz. that there was a delay in execution of the order of detention, since the order of detention passed on 28-11-1997 was served upon the detenu along with the grounds on 2-1-1998. Since he has raised the above ground during the course of arguments, we cannot expect any response for this ground in the reply returns filed on behalf of the respondents. However, Mr. Rajiv Patil, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, after having referred the case diary and the records, replied that for want of the detenu for nearly about 9.1/2 months, delay in executing the order of detention was occurred and that there was no laxity of any kind on the part of the authorities concerned in executing the order of detention. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor would further submit that on getting the tips from the informant, the detenu was able to be secured and arrested on 2-1-1998 which followed the clamping of the detention order was executed along with the grounds and documents and to this extent he would undertake to produce the case diary even if the Court wants. Production of the case diary has become unnecessary in the context that this ground has not at all been raised in writ petition itself, and that therefore, there is no laxity on the part of the respondent in responding the said contention. Enough at this stage, for to say that the submission made by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor would amply meet the contentions made by Mr. Nitin Sejpal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Enough at this stage, for to say that the submission made by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor would amply meet the contentions made by Mr. Nitin Sejpal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. We are very much impressed by the said counter contention made by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the reasoning that there was no inordinate delay in executing the order of detention. For the above said reasoning, this ground also fails. 18. No other substantial point or contention has been raised before us. 19. In the result, for the foregoing reasonings, the writ petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed. Rule, issued already, has thus been discharged. Petition accordingly dismissed. *****