JUDGMENT - N. ARUMUGHAM, J.:---By virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the mother of the detenue by name Mr. Mohamed Sadakat Hussain Shaikh who was detained by Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay by virtue of the Detention Order in D.O. No. 25/PCB/DP/Zone-VIII/1998 dated 29th January, 1998 detaining the prisoner by virtue of section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 as amended 1996 and r/w Government Order No. DDS-1397/1/SPL-3(B) dated 12th December, 1971 impugned the same for want of regularity and propriety. The order of detention shown in Exh. 'A' and the grounds of detention shown in Exh. 'B' and the documents relied upon shown in Exh. 'C' were contemporously served on the detenu on 31-1-1998. 2. The prejudicial activities of the detenu said to have been committed and referred to in the grounds of detention Exh. 'B' are briefly stated as follows : 3. One Mr. Abbas Gulam Momin aged about 46 years is working as a Manager in Hotel Sangam, Naik Nagar, L.B.S. Marg, Sion, Mumbai and residing in the said hotel itself alongwith other servants working therein and that he is aware of the detenu as a criminal, armed with always knife and moves with his associates and creates terror in the locality. While so, on 30th October, 1997 at about 3.00 hours the said Abbas Gulam Momin was sleeping in the hotel alongwith the other servants of the hotel, the detenu went and insisted him to open the door and, accordingly, when the door of the hotel was opened the detenu led him to broke the tube light and window glass pans. On doing so, Abbas Gulam Momin found the detenu armed with a knife alongwith his associate by name Pathan. The detenu further threatened him with dire consequences and demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from him and out of fear Abbas Gulam Momin agreed to pay the detenu the said amount. In this connection, a complaint of Abbas Gulam Momin to Dharavi Police Station was registered under C.R. No. 568 of 1997 for the offence under section 387 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which was followed by arrest of the detenu on 1-11-1997 and he has admitted his above said complicity. In this connection, a complaint of Abbas Gulam Momin to Dharavi Police Station was registered under C.R. No. 568 of 1997 for the offence under section 387 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which was followed by arrest of the detenu on 1-11-1997 and he has admitted his above said complicity. Consequently, a knife also was recovered on 21-11-1997 at the instance of the detenu. This was followed by the detenue who was remanded to the judicial custody by the learned 12th Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra and the police got the custody of the detenu till 10-11-1997. Consequently, he was released on bail with a condition to attend the Police Station on every Saturday between 6.00 and 8.00 p.m. regularly which bail was availed by the detenu on 29th September, 1997. 4. Barring the above, confidential enquiries were also made by the concerned police about the criminal activities disclosed, which would reveal that the detenu has victimised number of people from Dharavi area and that he being a weapon wielding desperado terrorised the people of that locality, which in the result were reluctant to complain against him openly. However, on getting assurance that their identity would be kept secret, they were called upon to give evidence and statement in the open Court or any other Forum and that accordingly two persons have given their statements depicting the whole episode of the detenu. Therefore, the statement of the above two persons viz. witness 'A' and witness 'B' were recorded in-camera. 5. Witness 'A' seems to be a businessman from Naik Nagar, Dharavi, Mumbai and that on 25-12-1997 he has stated that he knew the detenu as a goonda and that the detenu and his associates used to collect hafta from the residents and traders of the locality under threats and due to terror, nobody dares to complain against him and that in the second week of October, 1997 he would state that the detenu alongwith his associate went to his house on an evening and abused and threatened with dire consequences at the point of a chopper and demanded hafta from on. On witnessing the above incident, the residents of that locality closed the doors of their houses and ran helter skelter. Consequently, witness 'A' paid Rs. 200/- to the detenu out of fear. On witnessing the above incident, the residents of that locality closed the doors of their houses and ran helter skelter. Consequently, witness 'A' paid Rs. 200/- to the detenu out of fear. However, due to fear of reprisal at the hands of detenu he did not report the incident to the police. 6. Witness 'B' during his statement has stated that he was a Taxi driver from Sion, Mumbai and in his statement dated 27th December, 1997 had stated that he had claimed that he knew the detenu and his associates collecting the hafta from the residents, traders and factory owners by terrorising and assaulting them with deadly weapons and the people are living and carrying out their daily routine under the shadow of the said terror of the detenu. He would state further that around midnight in the first week of October, 1997 after parking his taxi at L.B.S. Marg he was counting the hire charges he collected. It was at that time the detenu and his associates went there and whipped out a knife and at the point of the same forcibly snatched away Rs. 600/- from the witness and further threatened him not to report the incident to police else he would be set on fire alongwith his taxi and left the place. Due to fear of reprisal the witness did not report the matter to the police. 7. As the above incidents were placed before the Detaining Authority viz. the first respondent and after having perused the same by the detaining authority, he has after applying his mind in full come to the conclusion and arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenue has unleashed a reign of terror and has become a perpetual danger to the society at large in the localities of Naik Nagar, L.B.S. Marg. Dharavi-Sion and adjoining areas to Brihan Mumbai. The detaining authority also identify that the people in the abovesaid areas are experiencing a sense of insecurity and are living and carrying on their daily avocations under a constant shadow of fear and by which even the tempo of the life of citizens in the above area is badly disturbed and affected. Dharavi-Sion and adjoining areas to Brihan Mumbai. The detaining authority also identify that the people in the abovesaid areas are experiencing a sense of insecurity and are living and carrying on their daily avocations under a constant shadow of fear and by which even the tempo of the life of citizens in the above area is badly disturbed and affected. Therefore, the first respondent having arrived at the subjective satisfaction of the prejudicial activities of the detenu and his associates to affect the public order in full has clamped the order of detention by virtue of clause 1 of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act as amended up to day, r/w. Article 226 of the Constitution of India by passing the impugned order which order alongwith the grounds has been served upon the detenu and he was detained, and that, therefore, the mother of the detenu has filed this writ petition canvassing the same for the grounds stated in the writ petition. 8. Mr. R.H. Mendonca, the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, and Mr. S.Y. Sonawane, the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai and Mr. Baviskar, Jailor, Group-II, attached to Nasik Road Central Prison filed their sworn returns denying the grounds and the averments made in the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner. 9. We have heard the rival submissions. Mrs. Sharmila Kaushik, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has attacked the impugned order of detention on the three following main grounds which are; i) That the impugned order of detention is vitiated for the reasons that it was passed by the first respondent with a mala fide intention of defying him with false and imaginary grounds and that therefore the impugned order is vitiated by the mala fide and that, ii) The impugned order of detention has become vitiated by non-application of mind by the detaining authority viz. the first respondent and that, iii) The incidents quoted in the grounds of detention do not at all affect the public order under the laws and do not come within the purview of public order but, at the outset, if at all it comes to the said events, would come within the ambit of the concept of law and order, certainly, not the public order and that, therefore, the impugned order of detention passed and confirmed by the respondents herein could clearly become vitiated on the above ground of the public order as well as the non application of mind by the detaining authority. 10. Mrs. Tahilramani, the learned A.P.P. on the contrary contended justifiably supporting the impugned order has stated that the every instance quoted and referred to by the first respondents while passing the impugned order of detention is perfectly correct in arriving at the subjective satisfaction and that the prejudicial activities committed by the detenu himself alongwith his associates would definitely comes into the ambit of public order and that, therefore, none of the grounds raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner would not even touch the impugned order and that therefore the learned P.P. would submit that the writ petition itself lacks any merits at all. 11. In the context of the above rival submissions, we have carefully gone into the order of detention, grounds of detention and the documents relied upon, all referred to in Exh. 'A' to Exh. 'C' at the context of the rival contentions above referred, with regard to the first instance is concerned, though the incident has taken place at about 03.00 hours on 30th October, 1997 due to the specific tact of breaking the glass pans of the windows at the odd hours of the hotel and terrorising and threatening Abbas Gulam Momin for extracting moneys with his dangerous weapons, certainly caused serious fear in the mind of the witness alongwith the other servants who were sleeping inside the hotel. They (The other servants of the hotel) forms part of a segment of the society and making the offence as registered in Dharavi Police Station would clearly come within the purview of the public order. They (The other servants of the hotel) forms part of a segment of the society and making the offence as registered in Dharavi Police Station would clearly come within the purview of the public order. In a similar fashion, if the conduct and activities of the detenu alongwith his associates as revealed by the witnesses 'A' and 'B' as recorded were perused, it would made clear that the detenue was a man of violent type having leading a life of a criminal and for the sake of extracting moneys from the others he would dare enough to inflict the injuries and so much so doing, is causing every danger and fear in the minds of the people at Dharavi and the areas of Naik Nagar, Kali Bharni, Prem Nagar, Shatabdi Nagar, L.B.S. Marg Dharavi, Sion which are predominantly slum area in Brihan Mumbai. Thus, it is noticed the activities of the detenu unleashed their rein of terror in the abovesaid areas and thereby the detenu has become a perpetual danger to life and property of the people residing in the said locality and deliberately indulging in assaulting and extracting the money from the general public viz. residents and shopkeepers and businessmen of the said locality which clearly goes to a segment of the society as a whole in the abovesaid areas for which the detenu and his associates alone were accountable and responsible and, that, therefore, the detaining authority has gone into every gamut of the matter and has arrived at a subjective satisfaction rightly and justifiably has passed the impugned order of detention and accordingly detained him. The one incident under the statement from the two witnesses recorded in camera would be more than adequate to make the detaining authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction and that therefore it was done and on having perused meticulously the impugned order and the relevant documents and the grounds and the respective contentions made at the Bar on behalf of both the parties, we are fully constrained to hold that there is no laxity or illegality in passing the impugned order of detention under the relevant provisions of law. 12. 12. In a case held between one (Amin Mohammed Qureshi v. Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay)1, 1994 Criminal Law Journal, page 2095 the Supreme Court in paragraph 3 has held the following: "We are satisfied that a perusal of the incidents would show that the detenu is of a desperate character and has been indulging regularly in committing crimes of serious nature disrupting maintenance of public order. The only other ground urged is that the detaining authority has not specifically mentioned in the grounds that the detenu has also a right to make a representation to it also besides making such representations to the Central Government and the State Government and therefore the earliest reasonable opportunity of making a representation as provided under Act. 22(5) of the Constitution has been denied." 13. In yet another case held between (Prabhakar Menka Shetty v. Ramamurthy, Commissioner of Police for Greater Bombay and others)2, 1993(2) Bom.C.R. 3 a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the provisions of the National Security Act on almost identical facts, has to observe as follows : "This takes us to the last point. It is submitted that all the incidents disclose only offences of extorsion of individuals having no impact on the even tempo of Society and consequently on the public order. The submission has merely to be stated to be rejected. Habitual and underterred extorsion of unknown persons in the locality in this manner by weapon wielder gangster certainly create panic and terror in the minds of the residents and affects the even tempo." 14. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also emphasized the ground that a representation sent by the petitioner through his lawyer addressed to the Government and the Advisory Board has not been duly considered. On a consideration of the same with reference to the case records and pleadings and the counter affidavits we may observe that there are no iota of merits in the above contentions for the reasoning that the reply affidavit contains the date wise explanation of what has happened, what has had been done with regard to the representation sent on behalf of the detenu. In fact, in short, to say there was no delay of any amount at any quantum, at any point of time in considering the written representation sent on behalf of the detenu and the rejection was made which was also subsequently duly intimated to the detenu by the authorities concerned as evident from the counter of affidavit. 15. On the whole, considering the whole gamut of the case, we do not come across any force in any of the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. On the other hand, we do find that there are every merits and force in the contentions made by Mrs. Tahilramani, the learned P.P. on behalf of the respondents. 16. With the result, the writ petition lacks any merits at all. 17. In the result, for the aforesaid reasonings and findings, the writ petition fails and accordingly is dismissed. The rule issued already has been discharged. Petition dismissed. *****