JUDGMENT - D.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---Petitioner is the wife of the detenu who is detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the "M.P.D.A. Act"). Grounds of detention were communicated to the detenu as per Exhibit 'C' dated 8-12-1998. Those grounds are, in short, as under: A) Giving threat to the Mayor of Ulhasnagar on 25-8-1997 at 12.30 hrs. on phone that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor will be killed and cut to pieces. At the same time other gang members of the detenu had gone to the house of Ganesh Chaudhary and gave threats to him. The Mayor was required to seek police protection and it was given to him. (B) On 15-5-1998 the detenu wanted to shift his brother in law to the hospital. He went to the Station Naka at 17.00 hours, two ambulances were stationed there but the drivers were not there. Detenu got enraged and broke the front glass of both the ambulances, creating panic amongst the public. The constable Mahadeo Parshuram, Deshmukh who was present nearby, was informed about the incident. He came to the spot with his colleagues i.e. other police constables and when the detenu was questioned, the detenu threatened and abused them creating terror. Offence under sections 427 and 353 of I.P.C. was registered against the detenu. (C) Conspiracy to Kill Mohan Variyaldas Behrani, who was voicing his grievance publicly of the illegal activities and goondaism and extortion by the detenu and in pursuance of the conspiracy attempt to kill the said Mohan Behrani with the help of other gang leaders on 28-6-1998 at about 14.50 hours near the factory of said Mohan Behrani. (D) On 10-9-1998 as per the confidential statement given by witness 'A' detenu went to Gajanan Market. Ulhasnagar where a shop owner on seeing him gave him Rs. 20,000/- but detenu threw that amount and abused the shop owner and demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- and assaulted the witness 'A'. His associate Kailas who was armed with knife threatened the members of public with his knife creating terror amongst the shop keepers, there was hue and cry in the market and due to fear shopkeepers closed down their shutters. The members of public ran helter and shelter. 1,00,000/- and assaulted the witness 'A'. His associate Kailas who was armed with knife threatened the members of public with his knife creating terror amongst the shop keepers, there was hue and cry in the market and due to fear shopkeepers closed down their shutters. The members of public ran helter and shelter. (E) As per the confidential statement of witness 'B' on 10-9-1998 detenu went to the Beer Bar and Permit Room in Ulhasnagar, asked the witness 'B', who was Manager, about the owner and when the owner was not there, demand of money was made. Witness 'B' could not satisfy. The Manager was abused, thereupon the detenu and his associates broke the glasses, threw the eatables. Customers and waiters started running and detenu caused damage to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- to the hotel and threatened the Manager that if the owner does not pay the amount within two days then the hotel would be destroyed completely. 2. While considering the validity of the detention orders, two criterias have been laid down i.e. whether the activities of the detenu affect the even tempo of life of the community adversely and whether they create law and order problem in public or affect public order. Public order is distinguished from law and order. The word 'order' as per Concise Oxford Dictionary means amongst other things, a social class or rank, set of persons separate and homogeneous as regards social level. Secondly, it means that arranged in systematic way, regulate, array, condition in which every part or unit is in its right place :tidiness, normalcy or healthy or efficient state; it also means constitution of world, where things normally happen, collective manifestations of natural forces or laws, natural or moral or spiritual system with definite tendencies. 3. Along with the meaning 'order' the meaning of the word 'orderly' has to be seen. As per the dictionary, it means, methodically arranged or inclined, regular, obedient to discipline, not unruly, well behaved. 4. When the word 'order' is used in conjunction with the "public" it therefore means, pattern of public behaviour in an orderly arranged, predetermined and disciplined way as regulated by the Code of Conduct whether legal, social or moral or otherwise, by the said society. An individual is a part of the society and society naturally consist of numerous individuals. 4. When the word 'order' is used in conjunction with the "public" it therefore means, pattern of public behaviour in an orderly arranged, predetermined and disciplined way as regulated by the Code of Conduct whether legal, social or moral or otherwise, by the said society. An individual is a part of the society and society naturally consist of numerous individuals. Both these factors individual and society have to act in an orderly manner i.e. in a manner which is complimentary to each other for survival, protection and peace. Different social laws, rules of morality and ethics, rules of religion and the legal system govern the behaviour of the individual atleast whenever an individual has to act in public. Even at home, an individual is required to have due regard to all these norms of Laws vis-a-vis his conduct with members of his family. 5. Society does not take cognizance of normal and natural behaviour of the individual so far as it is in an orderly manner and it does not create disturbance or nuisance to others. Minor disorderly behaviour or minor nuisance may be disregarded by the society or society may not take notice of it. Every civilised society has a civil system of its own and the laws or regulations to control and regulate the behaviour of an individual vis-a-vis other individuals or members of the society or public. If everybody behaves in an orderly manner at all times and in all the occasions, there is no need of law. However, such a situation cannot ever exist and has never existed where no legal system was in force. Because society consist of individuals who have their own fancies of likes, dislikes, prejudice, ways of life, anger, jealousy, hetrate, revenge and ego centric nature. In every society there are individuals who want everything to themselves without following any accepted norms of the society. There are individuals who want that others should succumb to their might, power, strength or terror. There are individuals who want all the benefits of living in a society without doing any legitimate activity but free of cost and only on the strength of their muscle power, weapon power or terrorising power. 6. It is for such individuals that legislations are required to be created and scrupulously implemented. M.P.D.A. Act is an Act in that direction. 7. 6. It is for such individuals that legislations are required to be created and scrupulously implemented. M.P.D.A. Act is an Act in that direction. 7. As defined amongst other things the dangerous persons as is a person who either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang commits or habitually commits or attempts to commit or abates the commission of any of the offence punishable under Chapter XVI to Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code or any of the offence punishable under Chapter V of the Arms Act, 1959. 8. Chapter XVI of the I.P.C. is regarding offences affecting the human body, they include culpable homicide, murder and abetment to such offences, thug, hurts as simple hurt, grievous, voluntarily caused hurt with deadly weapons for wrongful confinement and restraint, criminal force, assault, extortion, kidnapping, abduction by force and sexual offences. Chapter XVII is in respect of theft, extortion, robbery, dacoity, cheating, mischief, criminal trespass and etc. It will therefore be clear that all those offences are made punishable and seriously punishable because they are the menace to the society, a threat to the society and great harm to the individuals, members of public and members of society. 9. The offences as described in those chapters are not only serious but they have wider and deeper implications, if committed repeatedly by the same person either individually or jointly with gang members or colleagues. If any of these offences are committed by an individual only once or twice then they may not have any impact on the society as a whole so as to affect the even tempo of the life of community. Similarly an individual i.e. either by himself or with the help of others or through others commit any of these offences repeatedly but after a long interval and at difference places and not coming within the effective range of these activities then such activities may not create fear, panic or terror in the society. 10. A 'dangerous person' and 'habitual criminal' are both criminals. Both indulge in criminal activities but the former succeeds in creating terror, fright or fear in the society by ruthlessness, cruelty and ferociousness of his illegal activities. The activities may not be so frequent as to form a habit and to come within the purview of the definition word "habitual criminal". A 'dangerous person' and 'habitual criminal' are both criminals. Both indulge in criminal activities but the former succeeds in creating terror, fright or fear in the society by ruthlessness, cruelty and ferociousness of his illegal activities. The activities may not be so frequent as to form a habit and to come within the purview of the definition word "habitual criminal". The habitual criminal on the other hand did not necessarily be a dangerous criminal but it is the continuation and repetition of his illegal activities that poses danger and threat to the public order. 11. It is this fear, terror and ruthlessness which becomes "capital and asset" of the dangerous man, and it is this capital which he subsequently uses not only to carry out his illegal activities, but for easy gains from those illegal activities. Those gains are easy money, ample money and money as and when required and demanded by him. In addition those gains are acquiring richness and wealth to be used for fulfilment of all the worldy desires and pleasures. Such a dangerous person does not obviously believe in "work and earn rule" as approved by the society. He believes in earning money, easy money, without having been required to strive for it, to struggle for it, as is done by every peace and order loving citizen. Such a dangerous man does not believe in acquiring any kind of academic and professional qualification or skill in trade but he believes only in one thing i.e. might is right, that what he does is right and he must get whenever and whatever demanded at the point of knife, at the point of gun or on the strength of the terror created by him. 12. To create such a terror a dangerous man may or may not use weapons, may act individually or with the help of gang members, he may or may not use his muscle power or organised criminal power, but he knows that terror is not created if the illegal activities are done by him in isolation at night time in the dark or in the wilderness or at the place where there are no people to see, watch and get frightened. He usually and deliberately chooses day time as the best time of his activity and public place, business place and markets as the best for carrying out them. He usually and deliberately chooses day time as the best time of his activity and public place, business place and markets as the best for carrying out them. He wants to create an image of death in himself so that people should get frightened not only by seeing him but also by hearing his name, he wants that his activities should be seen and viewed by the people so that people come to know that he is a dangerous man capable of going to any extent and not afraid of the police machinery or of the society, in general. He uses force with brutality and use language which is always threatening and terrorising. He tries to create an impression that he is supreme and above law and nobody can touch him. 13. Such public performance is only with one object and that is to create frightening and terrifying image in the society, so that there is no resistance, least resistance and succumbing to the pressure of his demand and no daring to go to the police or to oppose him in any manner whatsoever. 14. It is true that society has evolved a system of criminal jurisprudence to deal with such criminals. The ordinarily criminal law is there for this purpose and it requires citizens to report such incidents to the police, police to register offences, carry out investigation and arrest such persons and prosecute them. However, legislations like M.P.D.A. Act are found necessary because this ordinarily criminal law is insufficient and incompetent to deal with such persons. Even if he is arrested and prosecuted such a person has a right to apply for bail, is released on bail (depending however on the facts of the case) because bail, and not jail being the guiding rule in that regard. It is true that under the ordinarily criminal law if a person released on bail commits similar crimes or other crimes and misuses the bail granted to him, police have right to apply for cancellation of his bail. However, police can succeed in that regard only if they are able to surmount and overcome the legal obstacles, in that regard. When therefore it is found that the ordinarily criminal law is ineffective or is of no use in curbing and controlling the authorities of such dangerous persons, then Acts like M.P.D.A. Act are resorted to. 15. However, police can succeed in that regard only if they are able to surmount and overcome the legal obstacles, in that regard. When therefore it is found that the ordinarily criminal law is ineffective or is of no use in curbing and controlling the authorities of such dangerous persons, then Acts like M.P.D.A. Act are resorted to. 15. When therefore the word 'public order' is to be interpreted, not only the external behaviour of the detenu, of which instances are given is required to be seen but also the psychological and mental set up of the detenu, the manner in which he is acting, the time and the place chosen by him for his activities and the effect of those activities on the society should also be seen or are required to be taken into consideration. It has also to be considered whether the man should be permitted to live and thrive on terror and whether the society should be subjected to the terror created by him or his gang or colleagues. The effects of terror are very deep and a terror striken individual or groups of individuals or society at large will firstly succumb to the pressure and the demands. Secondly, it will be most reluctant to go to the police and thirdly it will never resist and oppose. Therefore if the activity of an individual i.e. the detenu are found to have such effect on the society resulting in disturbing the even tempo of life and tidiness in the society and is creating obstructions and obstacles in the manner in which a normal and healthy society functions then the Acts like M.P.D.A. Act remains the only remedy available. 16. 'Public order' expects and requires every member of society to respect and observe all approved social norms of a cultured and civilised society. We are not living in a barbarian society. No one can be allowed to capitalise on the strength of his terror creating power nor allow citizens to succumb to the pressure and terror of such dangerous persons because of fear of death or destruction. We are not living in a barbarian society. No one can be allowed to capitalise on the strength of his terror creating power nor allow citizens to succumb to the pressure and terror of such dangerous persons because of fear of death or destruction. If the effect of the acts of the detenu is to create terror, fear and panic for the purpose of capitalising the same not only at particular time but also in future where people shall succumb to his pressure and terrorising power, then it cannot be said that such outburst or illegal activities do not affect public order or do not affect the even tempo of the community adversely. Whether the acts of a detenu are creating problems of public order or whether thy are disturbing the even tempo of society will undoubtedly depend on the facts of each case. 17. If the activities of the present detenu and particularly as reflected by, and from the statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' are seen they clearly show that detenu wanted that traders and businessmen, should fulfil demands of extortion, they should tremble out of fright and fear on seeing him. The witnesses to such incident should abstain themselves from going to the police. The statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' as recorded, will show that the businessman in Ulhasnagar locality was trembling when he saw the detenu and he immediately without any word being uttered by the detenu gave Rs. 20,000/- to the detenu. The statement further shows that the detenu threw that amount, abused and gave threats to the trader and assaulted and threatened the witness 'A' as to why he was present there. His companion i.e. detenu's companion threatened public with a knife in his hand and the detenu demanded that he wanted Rs. 1,00,000/ and his demand should be fulfilled. The statement further shows that this created panic and fear amongst the businessmen, they closed down their shutters and ran helter and shelter. 18. The second incident as revealed by statement of witness 'B' is also of the same type and nature. It was in the liquor bar, that the detenu with his companions went at night, threatened the Manager, created fear and panic, destroyed glasses cautery and other articles to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- with threats to fulfil his demand or face serious consequences. 19. It was in the liquor bar, that the detenu with his companions went at night, threatened the Manager, created fear and panic, destroyed glasses cautery and other articles to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- with threats to fulfil his demand or face serious consequences. 19. It was tried to be contended by the Counsel for the petitioner that these acts do not create problem of public order nor did they affect the even tempo of the society. We are totally in disagreement with these submissions. The first incident in the market place was in the evening at about 6 O'clock. It has effected the business community as is clear from the statement of witness 'A' and it can be visualised also. The second incident is in the beer bar or liquor bar which is not a place in isolation or a place in wilderness or place in secular. It is a place where members of public usually go, creating terror in the liquor bar and demanding money, has direct effect on those doing the business of liquor bar or beer bar. 20. It is necessary to clarify at this juncture that in this case no submissions were made by Mr. Gupte Counsel for the petitioner regarding procedural defect or about non compliance to the statutory or mandatory requirements. Therefore, no such issue arose for our consideration in this matter and we were required to find out only whether the activities of the detenu created problems of public order or they effect the even tempo of social life adversely. 21. Mr. Gupte for the petitioner relied upon the following authorities : (1) 1983(1) Bombay Case Reporter 440 (Ashok Shridhar Joshi v. The State of Maharashtra and another)1, (2) Unreported judgment of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 336 of 1997 (Smt. S.U. Doshi v. Shri Sudhakar Ambedkar others)2, decided on 17-8-1997 by Justice D.K. Trivedi and Justice S.S. Parkar and (3) Unreported judgment of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 354 of 1999 (Shri Vidyadhar H. Varma v. Shri R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police others)3, decided on 10-8-1999 by Justice Vishnu Sahai and Justice Chandrashekhara Das. 22. 22. The learned A.P.P. for the State relied upon the following authorities: 1989 Supreme Court Cases 736 (Sharad Kumar Tyagi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others)4, 1994(2) Bom.C.R. 429 (Smt. Jaya Daniel Lobo v. A.S. Samara and others)5, decided by Justice Ashok Agarwal and Justice D.K. Trivedi and 1996(3) All.M.R. 426 (Sunil Kishore Patil v. Satish Sahney others)6. 23. As stated above Mr. Gupte relied upon the case of Ashok Joshi v. State of Maharashtra wherein this Court consisting of Justice C.S. Dharmadhikari Justice V.V. Joshi held that grounds of detention must be pertinent and not irrelevant, proximate and not stale, precise and not vague. Irrelevance, staleness and vagueness are vices any single one of which is sufficient to vitiate an order of detention. It is also now well settled that inclusion of a single extraneous or relevant ground in the grounds of detention, vitiates the detention order. In that case detention order was passed on 29-5-1982 and it was on the basis of incidents dated 27-5-1979, 30-6-1979, 1-7-1979, 8-1-1982 and 6-4-1982. Out of the five incidents, Division Bench found that incident of 27-5-1979 had become stale on the passing of the detention order but apart from that the detention order was set aside because the detaining authority observed amongst other things : "These two cases ................ on which grounds Nos. (iv) and (v) of detention order are based were taken into consideration by me along with his past record and order of detention was passed on 29th May 1982 .................. I, therefore, say that the activities of the detenu which are narrated hereinabove are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order". The Division Bench therefore found that the detaining authority was influenced by extraneous circumstances, namely, the past record and therefore the detention was set aside and detenu was directed to be set at liberty. 24. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 336 of 1997 the detention order was set aside and the detenu was ordered to be released because it was observed by the Division Bench (of which Justice Trivedi was a member) that the incident alleged against the detenu did not affect even tempo of the life of the community at large and the alleged act of the detenu affected only the question of 'law and order' and not the domain of 'public order'. The instance in that regard was only solitary. 25. The instance in that regard was only solitary. 25. The third case relied upon by Mr. Gupte is Criminal Writ Petition No. 354 of 1999. A perusal of the judgment shows that the Division Bench consisting of Justice Vishnu Sahai and Justice Chandrashekhara Das did not accept the contention of the detenu that the acts alleged against him did not affect the public order. However, the detention was set aside because the in camera statements could not have been a foundation for the detention order, because these statements were not subjected to proper verification by the Commissioner of Police or Officer higher to him. The Division Bench also found that atleast in the registered offences the allegations of disturbance of public order must be present and unless those allegations are there in the registered offences, the detention order merely based on in camera statement will normally inspire little confidence. 26. On the other hand the learned A.P.P. relied upon the authorities as stated above. Out of those authorities, one having direct bearing on this case need only be considered i.e. the judgment of this Court reported in 1994 Cri.L.J. 2443 Smt. Jaya Daniel Lobo v. A.S. Samara and others decided by Justice Ashok Agarwal and Justice D.K. Trivedi. In that case three incidents were relied upon for arriving at the satisfaction regarding the need of detention of the detenu and after considering the three incidents and also after considering the Supreme Court judgment reported in A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1336 in the case of (Golam Hussain Alias Gama v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta)7, the Division Bench have come to the conclusion that those incidents where the detenu was found to be weapon wielding desperado committing heinous crimes by using deadly weapons like Rampuri knife creating a reign of terror in the minds of the public in certain area of the city and his record showing that he is a person of violent character who has been indulging in terrorising activities. The three instances were of extortion of businessmen or other citizens and the Division Bench therefore found that "These are not stray incidents against individuals. They affect a section of the society at large. The detenu is a known extortionist. He has been extorting money on threats of assault by dangerous weapons" and therefore the Division Bench after referring to the case of (Dr. They affect a section of the society at large. The detenu is a known extortionist. He has been extorting money on threats of assault by dangerous weapons" and therefore the Division Bench after referring to the case of (Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar)8, reported in A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 140 and also after referring to the case of (Ajay Dixit v. State of U.P.)9, reported in A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 18 and taking note of the observation of Justice Hidayatullah and Justice Bachawat observed that "It is necessary in each case to examine the facts to determine not sufficiency of the grounds nor the truth of the grounds, but nature of the grounds alleged and see whether these are relevant or not for considering whether the detention of the detenu is necessary for maintenance of public order." 27. So far as the judgment relied upon by Mr. Gupte are concerned, we found that those judgments have no bearing in the present case and the judgment of the Division Bench in Jaya Daniel Lobo's case is a direct authority even so far as the facts of this case are concerned. 28. Considering the said judgment of the Division Bench i.e. in the case of Jaya Daniel Lobo, we are of the view that the detention order in this case was proper. 29. It is therefore clear that activities of the detenu particularly as shown by statement of witnesses 'A' and 'B' are falling well within the definition of 'dangerous persons' and therefore the detention order is required to be upheld. 30. We are aware that liberty of the citizens is to be scrupulously guarded by the Court and merely because the police machinery or the detaining authorities label a person as a 'dangerous person' the Court is not bound to accept the same. However, if no legal lacunas and defects are pointed out or brought on record by the detenu or brought to the notice of the Court and the Court is required to accept the causes for detention on the basis particularly of in camera statements and there are no reasons to doubt the authenticity and veracity of those documents, then the detention order will have to the upheld. It is verified that each case differs on its own facts and facts in two cases are rarely similar. It is verified that each case differs on its own facts and facts in two cases are rarely similar. Therefore, considering the statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' and the activities attributed to be detenu by these statements, we have come to the conclusion that the detention was proper and justified and required to be upheld. We, therefore, pass the following order : ORDER Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. Petition dismissed. -----