JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Through this writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Mukhtar @ Pappu Abdul Sattar Sheikh has impugned the order dated 27th July, 2001, passed by the first respondent Mr. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining him under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996) (hereinafter referred to as the M.P.D.A. Act). The detention order alongwith the grounds of detention, which are also dated 27th July, 2001, was served on the detenu on 1st August, 2001 and their true copies have been annexed as annexures 'A' and 'B' respectively, to this petition. 2. A perusal of the grounds of detention (annexure 'B') would show that the impugned order is founded on one C.R., namely, C.R. No. 141/2001 under sections 392, 395, 34 of the India Penal Code, registered on the basis of a complaint, dated 31-5-2001 lodged by Sarjerao Waghmode at Dahisar Police Station and in-camera statements of three witnesses, namely, A, B and C out of which of 'A' and 'B' were recorded on 30-6-2001 and of 'C' on 2-7-2001. 2-A. The details pertaining to C.R. No. 141/2001 of Dahisar Police Station are contained in paras 4(a)(i) and 4(a)(ii) of the grounds of detention and read thus:-On 26-5-2001, one Ashok Saraf had gone to Ahmedabad for business tour and was to return by train at Borivali, Mumbai on 31-5-2001. He had asked Sarjerao Waghmode, the driver, to bring the Qualis car to pick him up at Borivali railway station. On 31-5-2001, at about 1.45 p.m. Sarjerao Waghmode, driving the Qualis car, started from Thane to Borivali to pick up Ashok Saraf. At about 2.30 a.m. when Sarjerao Waghmode was approaching the bridge near National Park on Ahmedabad Western highway, the petitioner detenu who was driving a white Sumo jeep, slowly overtook him from the left side and put the Sumo jeep across the Qualis car driven by Sarjerao Waghmode. On this Sarjerao Waghmode stopped his car. Immediately, three associates of the detenu, namely, Lazaret @ Shaun William Wilsoon, Peter Jacent D'Souza and Mohammed Hasan Mansoor Sheikh came out of the Sumo jeep and approached him. The detenu continued sitting on the steering of the Sumo jeep. On this Sarjerao Waghmode stopped his car. Immediately, three associates of the detenu, namely, Lazaret @ Shaun William Wilsoon, Peter Jacent D'Souza and Mohammed Hasan Mansoor Sheikh came out of the Sumo jeep and approached him. The detenu continued sitting on the steering of the Sumo jeep. His aforesaid associates forcibly opened the door of the car and dragged Sarjerao Waghmode from it. The detenu's associate Ashok @ Sonu Bipracharan Mohanty was standing in the front side of the Sumo jeep and was keeping a watch. His associate Peter D' Souza told Sarjerao Waghmode to proceed to Police Station. On this Sarjerao Waghmode told him that he would come in his car. Upon this, the detenu's associate Lazaret @ Shaun William Wilson, Peter Jacent D' Souza and Mohammed Hasan Mansoor Sheikh forcibly made him sit in the Sumo jeep. Peter D' Souza forcibly removed the keys of Qualis Car from the hands of Sarjerao Waghmode and started it and speeded away towards Dadar, Mumbai. Immediately, the detenu started the Sumo jeep and when it reached at the centre of National Park Bridge, he and his associates forcibly alighted Sarjerao Waghmode on the bridge from the car. Sarjerao then went to Dahisar Police Station and reported the matter. 2-B. The details in in-camera statements of witnesses 'A', 'B' and 'C', in short, are as under:- 2B(i) Witness 'A' in his statement, recorded on 30-6-2001, stated in short as under:-He owns a garage in Dahisar area and knew the detenu and his associates Peter Jacent D' Souza and Ashok @ Sonu Bipracharan Mohanty as notorious goondas who in Nancy Colony, Ratan Nagar and Asokvan, situated in Dahisar, had created a reign of terror and used to extort hafta money from the hawkers and shopkeepers. One day, in the third week of May, 2001, at about 7.30 p.m. when he was working in his garage, alongwith four workers and was repairing a Maruti Car, in the presence of two to three customers, the detenu and his associate Peter D' Souza entered his garage. The detenu told him that he wanted a car for two hours and inquired from his as to who was in-charge of the garage. On this, he told him that right now, there is no car and he should come tomorrow morning. The detenu told him that he wanted a car for two hours and inquired from his as to who was in-charge of the garage. On this, he told him that right now, there is no car and he should come tomorrow morning. However, detenu's associate Ashok @ Sonu remarked that he would not listen and understand civilized language and he would teach him in a language which he understood. On this detenu's associate Peter D' Souza caught hold of both his hands from behind; and the detenu took out a knife from the pocket of his pant and rested it on his neck, abused him and asked him to take out the keys. On witnessing the incident, when workers of the witness came forward, the detenu's associate Ashok @ Sonu took out a chopper and brandished it in air and in threatening voice said that if any one came forward, he would cut him into pieces. Witnessing the incident, the customers, as well as the workers ran away due to fear. Thereafter the detenu's associate Peter D' souza tried to start the Maruti Car but failed to start it. Thereafter he picked up a hammer and hit it on the bonnet of the car; and the detenu slapped him and told him that he did not have a car in a working condition. Thereafter, the detenu and his associates threatened the persons who had collected at the garage and pointed chopper and knives towards them. On account of threats, they ran away. 2-B(ii) Witness 'B' in his statement, recorded on 30-6-2001, in short, has stated as under :- He conducts the business of buying, repairing and selling old cars in Dahisar area. He has employed two workers. He knew detenu and his associates Peter Jacent D' Souza and Ashok @ Sonu Biracharan Mothany as notorious goondas who had created a reign of terror in Nancy Colony, Ratan Nagar and Ashokvan, situated a Dahisar and used to forcibly to extort hafta money from the shopkeepers in the said areas on the point of deadly weapons. One day, in the fourth week of May, 2001, at about 2.00 p.m. while he was showing a car to the customers in the presence of his two workers, suddenly the detenu and his associates Peter D' Souza and Ashok @ Sonu came and told him that he should sell him the said car. One day, in the fourth week of May, 2001, at about 2.00 p.m. while he was showing a car to the customers in the presence of his two workers, suddenly the detenu and his associates Peter D' Souza and Ashok @ Sonu came and told him that he should sell him the said car. When he refused to accede to their request, the detenu's associate Ashok Sonu slapped and kicked him and his other associate Peter D'Souza brandished a chopper in the air. The detenu, who was armed with an iron rod, started damaging the articles kept there with the iron rod. Witnessing the incident and becoming fear-stricken, customers and workers ran away. The pedestrains on the street also ran away and the shopkeepers in the vicinity closed their shops. The detenu's associate Peter D'Souza thereafter alongwith the detenu and others went away. 2-B(iii) Witness 'C' in his statement recorded on 7th July, 2001, in short, has stated as under :- He runs a Chinese food handcart in Dahisar area and knew the detenu and his associates Peter Jacent D' Souza and Ashok @ Sonu Bipracharan Mohanty, as goondas who in Nancy Colony, Ratan Nagar and Ashokvan (situated in Dahisar), had created a reign of terror and used to demand hafta money from the hawkers and shopkeepers. One day in the 4th week of May, 2001, at about 10.15 p.m. while he was selling Chinese food items on his handcart, the detenu and his associates Ashok @ Sonu and Peter D' Souza alighted from a auto rickshaw, which was being driven by the detenu, who was armed with a chopper. The detenu's associate Peter D' Souza was holding a hockey stick and his associate Ashok @ Sonu was armed with iron rod. The detenu abused him and told him that they wanted a amount of Rs. 500/- as hafta. Ashok @ Sonu damaged his hand cart with an iron rod and Peter D' Souza broke plates with the hockey stick. Witnessing the incident, the nearby hawkers and customers ran away. While leaving the place, the detenu's associate Ashok @ Sonu threatened him saying that in case, he informed the police, his hands and legs would be broken. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Witnessing the incident, the nearby hawkers and customers ran away. While leaving the place, the detenu's associate Ashok @ Sonu threatened him saying that in case, he informed the police, his hands and legs would be broken. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. U.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned detention order on three grounds, namely those pleaded as grounds 6-A, 6-B and 6-D in the petition. Since in our view, this petition deserves to succeed on ground 6-A alone, we are not adverting to the other two grounds of challenge. Ground 6-A reads thus :- “The petitioner says and submits that the Detaining Authority was satisfied that the detenu alongwith his associates Lazaret Peter D' Souza and Mohammed Hasan Mansoor Sheikh and Ashok @ Sonu has committed offence vide C.R. No. 141 of 2001 under the same situation and circumstances. The petitioner says and submits that surprisingly, it is observed that on the advise of the Advisory Board held on 7-9-2001, the State Government has revoked the detention order of two co-accused i.e. of Peter D' Souza and Shri Ashok @ Sonu. This action taken by the State Government in revoking the order of detention of two co-detenus and not revoking the order of the petitioner detenu is discriminative. The order of detention passed against the petitioner is illegal and bad in law, ought to be quashed and set aside.” 4. Mr. U.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner-detenu contended that not only co-detenus Peter D' Souza and Ashok @ Sonu, whose detention order has been revoked by the State Government pursuant to the report of the Advisory Board dated 7-9-2001, participated in C.R. No. 141 of 2001, of Dahisar Police Station but their participation is also reflected in the in-camera statements of three witnesses, namely 'A', 'B' and 'C'. Mr. Tripathi urged that, a perusal of the averments relating to C.R. 141/2001 of Dahisar Police Station and the recitals contained in in-camera statements of witnesses 'A', 'B' and 'C', to which we have adverted to in great detail earlier, show that the case of the petitioner-detenu was at par, if not better, with that of the aforesaid two co-detenus. Mr. Tripathi urged that, a perusal of the averments relating to C.R. 141/2001 of Dahisar Police Station and the recitals contained in in-camera statements of witnesses 'A', 'B' and 'C', to which we have adverted to in great detail earlier, show that the case of the petitioner-detenu was at par, if not better, with that of the aforesaid two co-detenus. He contended that in the said circumstance, the State Government should have also revoked the detention order against the petitioner-detenu and its failure to do so violated his fundamental rights of equality before law guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Tripathi invited our attention to a Division Bench decision rendered by the Allahabad High Court in case of (Anil v. State of U.P. and others)1, reported in 1997 Criminal Law Journal page 276, wherein in his contention, in similar circumstances, as would become manifest from a perusal of paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said decision, a detention order had been quashed in a detention under the National Security Act. To drive home his point Mr. Tripathi read paras 13 and 14. We feel it necessary to extract them. Para 13 reads thus : “13. The detention order of the petitioner is also challenged on the basis of its being discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Similar and on same very grounds detention orders were passed against Nanak Chandra, father of the petitioner and Sunil, brother of the petitioner by the same Detaining Authority. However, admittedly these were revoked when the Advisory Board did not recommend the detention on the basis of same very allegations. The reading of the grounds of detention of present petitioner, which are given in Annexure No. 3 and that of grounds of detention of Nanak Chandra and Sunil, copies of which are Annexures-C-A-2 and C-A-3 annexed with the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party, the District Magistrate, Meerut, shows that they are identical and same in verbatim with the only distinction that in the grounds of detention of present petitioner (Annexure-3), he is attributed with the role of kidnapping and thereafter committing the murder of the child. A common reading of detention orders of Nanak Chandra and Sunil, referred to above, finds mention. “In the planning and conspiracy for kidnapping the child Tushar you played an active role. A common reading of detention orders of Nanak Chandra and Sunil, referred to above, finds mention. “In the planning and conspiracy for kidnapping the child Tushar you played an active role. You alone conspired actively in getting the child killed with knife and by putting a hot brick on his body at 1.30 p.m.” and thereafter you act of entering into a conspiracy with by your father, mother, bother Anil and Riksha Pullers Raju alias Raj Kumar and Kaluwa alias Sunil for kidnapping a four year child Tushar and then getting him murdered in most cruel and daring manner has created a sense of fear and terror among the people of the locality. Out of fear the children are not being permitted to go out of their houses and also the people are felling scared of sending their children to their schools.” Para 14 reads thus :- “14. These are in verbatim the same allegations against the petitioner Anil in his detention order. There could be no reason for the authority not to have considered the case of the petitioner in the light of the report of the Advisory Board in respect of Nanak Chandra and Sunil. While approving the detention of the petitioner, the Government was required to keep in mind the fact that in similar circumstances detention of two other detenus was revoked. If the grounds of detention are identical, the revocation of detention order in respect of two and confirming the same in respect of third one can result in gross discrimination from person to person. This view is strengthened from the decision of this Court in (Wazir Yadav v. State of U.P.)2, reported in 1992(2) E.F.R. 637 and decision in (Aruna Shankar v. State of U.P.)3, 1984 All.L.J. 1031. In another case of (Charan Singh Yadav v. State of U.P.)4, Writ Petition No. 494 (H/C) of 1995 decided on 3-4-96 the Division Bench of this Court quashed the detention order of the petitioner wherein the detention of similarly situated two other detenus was revoked by the Government and the case of the petitioner was found to be discriminated. In another case of (Charan Singh Yadav v. State of U.P.)4, Writ Petition No. 494 (H/C) of 1995 decided on 3-4-96 the Division Bench of this Court quashed the detention order of the petitioner wherein the detention of similarly situated two other detenus was revoked by the Government and the case of the petitioner was found to be discriminated. It may be recalled that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government the allegations of the petitioner that “he has been discriminated in the matter of detention, as his co detenus Nanak Chandra and Sunil have been let off, as their detention orders have been revoked by the State Government, which fact was not kept in mind or considered by the State Government while confirming the detention of the petitioner has gone unrebutted as such a plea was never replied in counter affidavit and the presumption is that the allegations of the petitioner that the revocation of detention order of Nanak Chandra and Sunil were not kept in mind by the State Government while confirming the detention of the petitioner have been accepted. There is, thus, every reason to hold that the detention of the petitioner has been passed in most mechanical manner without the application of mind. If Nanak Chandra and Sunil are equally responsible for the murder of small child and if their release is not likely to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the release of the petitioner, if at all on bail and not likely to jeopardise the maintenance of public order in any manner. The challenge to detention order on both the grounds i.e. it has no nexus to the public order and secondly that the detention of the petitioner is discriminatory in nature, is full of merit. The allegations mentioned in the ground of detention are not of such a nature as to lead to any apprehension that the even tempo of the community would be disturbed. The detention of the petitioner under section 3(2) of the Act is hereby held as illegal.” 5. Ground No. 6-A has been replied to in para 2 of the returns of Mr. Kasardekar, Desk Officer, Home Department (Special) Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Mr. Khairmode, Secretary, Advisory Board, M.P.D.A. In our view, it would be pertinent to extract paragraph 2 of both the returns, wherein this ground has been replied to. Ground No. 6-A has been replied to in para 2 of the returns of Mr. Kasardekar, Desk Officer, Home Department (Special) Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Mr. Khairmode, Secretary, Advisory Board, M.P.D.A. In our view, it would be pertinent to extract paragraph 2 of both the returns, wherein this ground has been replied to. Paragraph No. 2 of the return of Mr. M.S. Kasardekar, Desk Officer, Home Department (Special), Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai reads thus :- “With reference to para 6(A) of the petitioner, it is humbly submitted that the detenu was actually detained on 1-8-2001 and the report about execution of detention order was submitted by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai to the State Government. The said report was forwarded to the Advisory Board under section 10 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred as the 'said Act'). Thereafter the detenu was heard personally by the Hon'ble Advisory Board, the Advisory Board submitted its report and opinion to the Government of Maharashtra on 11-9-2001, which was received by the Government on same day. The Advisory Board opined that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu. Accordingly, Government has, after careful consideration of the report and opinion of the Advisory Board confirmed the detention order and issued confirmation order on 14-9-2001. Thus the action taken under sub-section (1) of section 12 of the said Act is according to the provisions of the said Act. Therefore there is no substance in this para.” Paragraph 2 of the return of Mr. S.M. Khairmode, Secretary, Advisory Board, M.P.D.A. Act reads thus :- “With reference to para 6(A) of the petition, it is submitted that the role of the detenu is different from that of the 2 co-accused whose order of detention has been revoked by the Advisory Board. It is submitted that in addition to this, the detenu is a history shetter and has number of criminal cases pending against him. It is submitted that the sponsoring authority had brought to the notice of the Advisory Board that in all there are 12 cases pending against him registered by various Police Stations which are of robbery, assault, criminal intimidation, house tress-pass etc. Hence, considering this background of the detenu, the Advisory Board gave its opinion that there was sufficient cause for detaining the detenu. Hence, considering this background of the detenu, the Advisory Board gave its opinion that there was sufficient cause for detaining the detenu. It is submitted that since the 2 co-detenus have no cases pending against them, therefore, the Advisory Board revoked the order of detention against the said 2 co-detenus. It is submitted that the opinion of the Advisory Board was forwarded to the State Government, which was thereafter independently considered and confirmed by the State Government. Hence, it is denied that the order of detention revoked with respect to 2 co-detenus is discriminative. It is further denied that the order of detention is illegal, bad in law and ought to be quashed and set aside. Thus, there is no substance in the say of the petitioner in this para.” 6. A perusal of paragraph 2 of the return of Mr. S.M. Khairmode would show that the Advisory Board opined that there was sufficient cause for detention of the detenu because it had been brought to its notice that 12 cases which were cases of robbery, assault, criminal intimidation, house trespass etc. and which had been registered at various Police Stations, were pending against the detenu and it opined revocation of the detention order against the co-detenus Peter D' Souza and Ashok @ Sonu because no cases were pending against them. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph would also show that the report of Advisory Board was forwarded to the State Government which independently considered it and confirmed the detention of the detenu. In our view, it is not necessary to refer to the averments contained in paragraph No. 2 of the return of Mr. Kasardekar to adjudicate upon ground 6-A and consequently, we are not dealing with them. 7. Ms. Aruna Kamat, learned Counsel for the respondents strenuously urged that the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner detenu's fundamental right of equality before law and equal protection of laws, through out the territory of India, guaranteed to him by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, has been violated, is misconceived. She urged that Article 14 of the Constitution of India, only prohibits irrational discrimination and not rational classification. She urged that Article 14 of the Constitution of India, only prohibits irrational discrimination and not rational classification. She contended that, in as much as, 12 cases were pending against the petitioner-detenu and none against the co-detenus, the petitioner-detenu was in a distinct class by himself and cannot claim that his fundamental right guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been violated. 8. We have reflected over Ms. Aruna Kamat's submission and are constrained to observe that we do not find any merit in it. In our judgment the circumstance that twelve cases were pending against the petitioner-detenu does not place him in a separate class, because they have no nexus with the detention order. The basis of the detention order against the petitioner-detenu is not those twelve criminal cases but four incidents; one in the form of C.R. No. 141/2001 of Dahisar Police Station and three in the form of in-camera statements, all four having been referred to in the grounds of detention. It is pertinent to mention that in paragraph 1 of the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has stated as under:- “I hereby communicate to you the grounds as mentioned in paragraph No. 4 below on which a detention order has been made by me on this day against you under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act.” (M.P.D.A. Act.) The said lines would make it manifest that grounds of detention on which the impugned detention order is founded are contained in paragraph No. 4. In paragraph No. 4, only four incidents one relating to C.R. No. 141/2001 of Dahisar Police Station and three in-camera statements of witnesses 'A', 'B' and 'C' are mentioned. The twelve cases, referred to in Mr. Khairmode's affidavit, do not figure in the grounds of detention. In that view of the matter, in our considered judgment, the circumstance that twelve cases were pending against petitioner detenu would not place him in a class different from other two co-detenus, namely, Peter D' Souza and Ashok @ Sonu, whose grounds of detention were identical that of the petitioner-detenu and who were involved in equal measure in the four incidents as the detenu and against whom, as mentioned earlier, the detention order has been revoked by the State Government, pursuant to the report of the Advisory Board. In the aforesaid factual matrix, in our judgment, there is merit in the contention of the petitioner's Counsel that the failure of the State Government to revoke the detention order issued against the petitioner-detenu violated his fundamental right, guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. We have earlier referred to the decision reported in 1997 Criminal Law Journal 276 (supra) and quoted paragraphs 13 and 14 therefrom. A perusal of the said decision would show that a detention order under the National Security Act was passed against three persons, namely, Anil, Nanak Chandra and Sunil. A perusal of paragraphs 13 and 14 would show that the same allegations were levelled against them and the grounds of detention were common in respect of all of them but the State Government, pursuant to the report of the Advisory Board approved the detention of Anil, but revoked that of Nanak Chandra and Sunil. A perusal of paragraph 14 would show that Division Bench after referring to a number of decisions, quashed the detention order on two grounds, namely, that the act of the State Government in not revoking the detention order against Anil was discriminatory in nature and the incidents referred in grounds of detention had no nexus with maintenance of public order. In our view, the first consideration, which prompted the learned Judges to quash the detention order against Anil, is in all fours applicable to the present case. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we find merit in ground 6(A). 11. In the result:-we allow this writ petition; quash and set aside the impugned detention order; direct that the petitioner-detenu Mukhtar @ Pappu Abdul Sattar Shaikh be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case; and make the rule absolute. Writ petition allowed. -----