D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the detention order dated 7-2-1998 passed by the Detaining Authority in exercise of powers under See. 3 (2) of the Gujarat prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act. 1985 (for short "pasa Act") and for his immediate release from illegal detention. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts are that on 7/02/1995 Commissioner of Police. Vadodara city exercising the powers of Detaining Authority under PASA Act on the material placed before him against the petitioner reached subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is a dangerous person. This subjective satisfaction was arrived at for the reasons recorded in the grounds of detention and the grounds were based on the material placed before the Detaining Authority which consisted of documents and statements of three witnesses. The activity of (lie petitioner, according to the detaining Authority, disrupted public order and his mere presence itself developed sense ol insecurity amongst citizens vis a their lives and properly. Applying mind to the alternative remedies the Detaining Authority concluded that except keeping the petitioner in preventive detention other remedies will not serve the purpose. Consequently, the order passed by the Detaining Authority has been challenged in this petition. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of detention only on one ground, viz. , that the petitioner is not a dangerous person within the meaning of Sec. 2 (c) of the PASA Act and that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining Authority on the basis of stray incidents between individuals and the petitioner could not be sufficient for branding the petitioner as "dangerous person". The detention order was. therefore, assailed on that ground only. Other grounds taken in the writ petition were not pressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE only point tor determination in this petition, therefore, remains whether me petitioner is a dangerous person within the meaning of Sec. 2 (c) of the PASA act and whether the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority in coming to this conclusion is legally sustainable or it was a mechanical exercise which has rendered detention of the petitioner illegal. ( 5 ) DANGEROUS person has been defined under Sec. 2 (c) of the PASA Act to mean a person who either by himself or as a member of leader of a gang habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of any of the offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII ol the Indian Penal Code or any of the offences punishable under Chapter V of the Arms Act. 1959. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner drawing my attention to the grounds of detention contained in Annexure B argued that only two criminal cases of 1997 were registered against the petitioner which are pending trial and in one case of 1998 investigation is going on. He contended that on the basis of Division Bench pronoucement of this Court in Mehoob Ibrahim Patel v. B. K. jha, Police commissioner, reported in 1986 (2) [xxvii (2)| GLR 1358. the word "habitual" in Sec. 2 (c) means habitually committing offences during the period of three successive years and since three cases covered a period of only two years the petitioner cannot be said to be dangerous person -. This Division Bench pronouncement has lost its utility and it was wrongly cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. for the obvious reason that the requirement of commission of offence during three successive years found place in Sec. 2 (c) earlier. bu. t the words "during the period of three successive years" were deleted by Gujarai Act No. 26 of 19856. Consequently. there is no requirement that the petitioner should have committed offences successively during three successive years. ( 7 ) IT was next contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of pronouncement of Apex Court in M. J. Slaikh v. M. M. Mehta, Commissioner of Police, reported in 1995 (2) [xxxvi (2)| GLR 1268 (SC) that for upholding a detention order under Sec. 3 valid, it is necessary to establish that a person habitually indulges in the activities mentioned in this section. He further contended that habitual means continuity of action and not stray incident. According to the learned Counsel the incidents cited in the grounds of detention are stray incidents on which it cannot be held that the petitioner was habitually committing such offences. He further contended that habitual means continuity of action and not stray incident. According to the learned Counsel the incidents cited in the grounds of detention are stray incidents on which it cannot be held that the petitioner was habitually committing such offences. He further contended that the activities of the petitioner do not amount to disturbance of public order, hence the order of detention is invalid. I have gone through the entire ruling in M. J. Slaikhs case (supra ). The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in this case is to the following effect : (I) Expression "habit" or "habitual" has not been defined under the PASA. It does not refer to the frequency of the occasions, but to the invariability of practice and the habit has to be proved by totality of facts. (II) The complicity of a person in an isolated offence is neither evidence nor a material of any help to conclude that a particular person is a "dangerous person" unless there is material suggesting his complicity in such cases which lead to a reasonable conclusion that the person is a habitual criminal. (III) In order to bring a person within the expression "dangerous persons" as defined in clause (c) ot Sec. 2 of the Act. there should be positive material to indicate that such person is habitually committing or attempting to commit or abetting the commission of offences which are punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code or under Chapter V of the Arms Act. (IV) That a single or isolated act falling under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of I. P. C. or Chapter V of the Arms Act cannot he characterised as a habitual act referred to in Sec. 2 (c) of the PASA Act. (V) It is necessary to determine whether besides the person being a "dangerous person" his alleged activities fall within the ambit of the expression disturbance of public order. (VI) Activities of a person which exclusively fall within the domain of law and order have nothing to do with the maintenance of public older. ( 8 ) IT is now to be seen whether the above requirements laid down by the Apex court are fulfilled in the instant case or not. (VI) Activities of a person which exclusively fall within the domain of law and order have nothing to do with the maintenance of public older. ( 8 ) IT is now to be seen whether the above requirements laid down by the Apex court are fulfilled in the instant case or not. ( 9 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the activities of the petitioner do not disturb public order cannot be accepted nor the contention that the activities relate to individuals only. The grounds of detention (Annexure B) were prepared by the Detaining Authority on the material placed before him. The following subjective satisfaction was arrived at by the Detaining Authority on the basis of material produced before him :"i am fully satisfied that you are a dangerous and fanatic person having vindictive nature. You keep with you deadly weapons like Rampuri knife, gupti. etc. You accept huge amounts by means of "sopari" from builders to grab lands. houses, shops etc. , from the residents in Vaghodia road. Ajwa Road. Bapod Jakatnaka. Panigate. etc. . area and with a view to fulfil your motive, in complicity with builders. you make serious deadly attacks on the innocent people by means of sharp-edged weapons. You also take "sopari" to evict the people from houses and shops, also extort monthly instalments from the businessmen in these areas and also forcibly snatch away articles/things from the people. With a view to see that your such antisocial activities are carried on smoothly, you have formed a team of goondas consisting of headstrong persons like you and with a view to impress upon the citizens. and for the purpose of satisfying the builders, you pick up quarrels with innocent people to fulfil illegal works of "sopari" and equipped with deadly weapons, you along with your accomplices, threatened people with lives and rush with open weapons to beat the people on the roads, make deadly assaults, cause serious physical injuries and spread an atmosphere of terror and fear in public and thereby disrupt public order. Merely because of your presence itself, citizens feel insecurity of their lives and properties. It is necessary to forthwith prevent you from doing such criminal anti-social activities prejudicial to maintenance of public order. " ( 10 ) IN ground No. 2 the activities of the petitioner had been high-lighted. Merely because of your presence itself, citizens feel insecurity of their lives and properties. It is necessary to forthwith prevent you from doing such criminal anti-social activities prejudicial to maintenance of public order. " ( 10 ) IN ground No. 2 the activities of the petitioner had been high-lighted. It is stated that he is headstrong and fanatic person of vindictive nature. He keeps deadly weapons like Rampuri knife, sword, gupti. etc. he takes "sopari" from the builders to snatch away lands, shops, houses, etc. . from the people of Vaghodia Road. Ajwa road, Bapod Octroi Naka and Panigate areas at throwaway prices. Further with a view to achieve this activity he attacks innocent persons with sharp-edged weapons. He also accepted "sopari" for evicting people from houses and shops. He received monthly instalments from the businessmen in this area and extorts things from them. He also forms a team of goons of headstrong persons. He also threatened people at large who opposed his activities and openly beat them and injures them with deadly weapons. In this way. atmosphere of fear and terror in the aforesaid areas has been spread which disturbs public order. Beside this statement of three witnesses have also been referred. Priviledge has been claimed that these witnesses are terrorised from the petitioner and they do not want to disclose their identity:" privilege under Sec. 9 (2) of PASA, in these circumstances, was rightly claimed by the Detaining Authority. ( 11 ) COMING to the incidents deposed by the witnesses, one incident is of 1 1/10/1997 at about 6-30 p. m. The witness was present at his business place when the petitioner, along with his three companions, went there, called the witness on road and told him that his builder wanted to purchase the land situated near highway road on Vaghodia Chokdi from its land owner and negotiations were going on with the land owner and why he had instigated the land owner yesterday. Immediately thereafter, he threatened the witness and started beating him by kicks and fists. The witness raised alarm whereupon petitioners associates collected and they also started beating the witness by kicks, fists and hockey sticks. On raising alarm by the witness passers-by and vehicle owners collected there. Due to fear of petitioner nobody came forward to save the witness. Immediately thereafter, he threatened the witness and started beating him by kicks and fists. The witness raised alarm whereupon petitioners associates collected and they also started beating the witness by kicks, fists and hockey sticks. On raising alarm by the witness passers-by and vehicle owners collected there. Due to fear of petitioner nobody came forward to save the witness. Petitioner took out Gupti and rushed towards the crowd with a view to beat people who collected at the spot. Dagger and hockey were also brandished. On account of these activities the shops situated near the locality were closed. Traffic was also disrupted and atmosphere of fear and danger had gripped the area. ( 12 ) THE second incident was of 9/12/1997 at 7-30 p. m. The witness narrated the incident that he was coming from Mental Hospital. The petitioner and his two associates intercepted thewitness and threatened him not to do the land or building business in his area. The petitioner also threatened the witness as to why he had brought the contractor in his area and he started beating the witness. Thereupon, usual objection was taken. The witness was thrown on the road and the petitioner and his two associates started beating him. On the alarm of the witness the vehicle owners, shop-keepers and others gathered. The petitioner brought sword from the Ambassador Car standing nearby and chased the people with Gupti and dharia. Hence the people started running away. Due to fear of the petitioner shopkeepers closed their shops and atmosphere of terror spread all over the area as if there were large-scale riots. ( 13 ) THE third incident occurred on 21/11/1997 at 5-00 p. m. when the petitioner and his companion on a scooter stopped the witness and told him why he does not want to sell his shop to the man of the petitioner and giving threats he started beating the witness. On persuastion of the witness the petitioner started shouting that he will give money on that day itself and he took out Gupti from his scooter and rushed to beat the witness. The petitioner and his companion chased the witness with Gupti and Rampuri knife with intention to the witness with a view to kill him. Vehicle owners gathered and other people were frightened and ran away. The shops were closed down. The petitioner and his companion chased the witness with Gupti and Rampuri knife with intention to the witness with a view to kill him. Vehicle owners gathered and other people were frightened and ran away. The shops were closed down. ( 14 ) THE Detaining Authority has further mentioned that preventive action under sees. 107 and I 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also taken against the petitioner and two cases were registered which are pending. Since these preventive remedies also became futile the Detaining Authority passed the impugned order of detention. ( 15 ) FROM what has been narrated and discussed above, it is obvious that three criminal cases were registered under the Indian Penal Code and two under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The cases on the incidents narrated by the three witnesses could not be registered because of the fear in the mind of the witnesses. They had no courage to report the matter to the police and to disclose their identity. ( 16 ) IN this way it can safely be concluded that the petitioner was repealing his activity and committed repeated offences punishable under Chapter XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code. Keeping unlicensed Rampuri Knife, sword and Gupti is also an offence punishable under Sec. 25 of the Arms Act. viz. punishable under chapter V of the Arms Act. ( 17 ) IT is then difficult to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it was only stray and isolated activity of the petitioner and not hrs isolated activity. Repetition of criminal activity is fully exhibited in the grounds of detention and as such it was rightly concluded by the Detaining Authority that the petitioner was habitual in committing offences punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII of the I. P. C. and Chapter V of the Arms Act. The case of M. J. Shaikh (supra) is distinguishable on facts. Repetition of criminal activity is fully exhibited in the grounds of detention and as such it was rightly concluded by the Detaining Authority that the petitioner was habitual in committing offences punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII of the I. P. C. and Chapter V of the Arms Act. The case of M. J. Shaikh (supra) is distinguishable on facts. The ratio laid down in that case has to he followed and observed by all Courts, but if the facts of that case are taken into consideration it is found that the Supreme Court, after examination of the incidents disclosed in the grounds of detention and criminal activities ot the petitioner found that there remained only incident dated 10-8-1994 pertaining to alleged beating of a business man which was considered to be strictly against the individual having no adverse impact on public at large. In the case before me it is not a case of one incident rather three incidents narrated by the witnesses-and three cases registered under the indian Penal Code and two cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure. As such the impugned order cannot be quashed on the ground that it relates to individual only. ( 18 ) COMING to the question of disturbance of public order the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the alleged activities of the petitioner do not amount to disturbing the public order. I am unable to accept this contention. The expressions "public order" and "law and order" were considered by the Apex Court in M. J. Sluiikli . v ("ci. sr (supra) and in other cases also. ( 19 ) A distinction should be drawn between law and order and public order. In spite of the marked distinction between the two expressions it has been found that detention orders are passed by the authorities in respect of the activities of a person which exclusively fall-within the domain of law and order and which have nothing to do with the maintenance of public order. A public order is said to have been disturbed when even tempo of the life of the society is disturbed in a particular locality. Likewise, if peace and tranquility in a particular locality is disturbed due to prejudicial criminal activities of the petitioner it can safely be said that the public order has been disturbed. A public order is said to have been disturbed when even tempo of the life of the society is disturbed in a particular locality. Likewise, if peace and tranquility in a particular locality is disturbed due to prejudicial criminal activities of the petitioner it can safely be said that the public order has been disturbed. It was not a case of quarrel between the petitioner and individual alone. On the other hand. the activities of the petitioner highlighted in the grounds of detention go to show that the petitioner was repeating his criminal activities and while doing so he was not only beating and threatening the witnesses. but also the public and crowd which collected on the alarm of the witnesses. The members of the public were also threatened by the petitioner and his companions. Lethal weapons were shown to the members of the public. In the two incidents narrated in the grounds of detention it has been mentioned that terror and panic prevailed in (the locality where those incidents took place. In one of the incidents it WAS disclosed that atmosphere of terror and fear spread all over the area as if there were large-scale riots. Due to fear of the petitioner and his companions shopkeepers had closed down their shops in two localities. In these circumstances, there should be no difficulty in observing that such activities had disturbed the peace. tranquility and even tempo of the life of the residents of the locality where such incidents took place. Thus. in view of the incidents between the petitioner and the witnesses it cannot be said thai those incidents have no nexus with the maintenance of public order. In my opinion, the activities of the petitioner certainly disturbed maintenance of public order. Preventive detention of the petitioner, in these circumstances, was justified. The subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority cannot be said to be mechanical. On the other hand it was based upon the material placed before him for reaching subjective satisfaction. ( 20 ) TO conclude, therefore, it can be said that the petitioner is a "dangerous person" and his activities affected maintenance of public order. The detention order was. therefore, rightly passed. . ( 21 ) NO other point was pressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 22 ) THE petition, for the reasons stated above, lias no merit and is bound to tail. The detention order was. therefore, rightly passed. . ( 21 ) NO other point was pressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 22 ) THE petition, for the reasons stated above, lias no merit and is bound to tail. It is accordingly dismissed. .