JUDGMENT : (Per : K.J. Rohee, J.) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the detention order dated 11.7.2006 passed by Respondent No.2 namely the District Magistrate, Yavatmal. 4. The petitioner is the brother of Swadesh alias Guddu Hanumanprasad Pande, R/o. Ghatanji, District . Yavatmal (the detenu). On the proposal submitted by the Sponsoring Authority (Respondent No.3) the Detaining Authority (Respondent No.2) issued an order dated 11.7.2006 under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the MPDA Act). In pursuance of the said order the brother of the petitioner was detained on 12.7.2006. 5. The detention order has been challenged on several grounds. Firstly while detaining the petitioner's brother Police Station officer of Police Station, Ghatanji handed over copy of detention order along with the grounds of detention to the petitioner. These documents were not supplied to the detenu. Secondly these documents are in English and its Marathi translation was provided. However, the detenu does not know English or Marathi and he knows only Hindi language. According to the petitioner the detention order was passed by the Detaining Authority without applying its mind independently, without its subjective satisfaction and mechanically accepted the proposal submitted by the Sponsoring Authority. Thus, it is the outcome of nonapplication of mind. The period of detention is not specified in the detention order. There is no live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention.There is unreasonable delay between the date of the alleged incident and the date of detention. The incidents referred to by the Detaining Authority are not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the detenu would continue to indulge in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Detaining Authority did not apprise the detenu that he has a right to make representation to the Detaining Authority itself, thereby the valuable right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is violated. 6. The prosecution against the detenu in Crime No.132/1995 under Sections 353, 332 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been withdrawn by the State on 28.10.1999. 6. The prosecution against the detenu in Crime No.132/1995 under Sections 353, 332 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been withdrawn by the State on 28.10.1999. By judgment dated 30.4.2005 the detenu has been acquitted in Crime No.3/1996 for the offence punishable under Section 323, 353, 448, 294, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The report on the basis of which Crime No.104/2004 was registered against the detenu was by way of counter blast. Crime No.195/2005 under Section 353, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Crime No.49/2006 under Section 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code are based on false complaints. Offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act and the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act have been registered against the detenu only to harass him and that they cannot be taken as ground for detention. It was further contended that the Sponsoring Authority as well as Detaining Authority did not properly verify in-camera statements and no reliance could be placed on those statements. Thus the impugned detention order is illegal and it should be quashed and set aside by paying compensation of Rs.10 Lacs to the detenu for his illegal detention. 7. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed their reply-affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner. According to the respondents the detention order is perfectly legal. It was approved by the State Government within the statutory time and was subsequently confirmed by the State. According to the respondents the petition is without any substance and is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard Mr. S.A. Brahme with Mr. M.I. Dhatrak, Advocates for the petitioner and Mr. D.B. Patel, APP for the respondents/State. We have carefully gone through the Annexures filed by the parties. 9. While challenging the detention order, the learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his submission only to two grounds; firstly there is unreasonable delay between the date of the alleged incidents and the date of detention. Secondly there is no live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention. The detention order was passed by the Detaining Authority without applying its mind independently and without its subjective satisfaction. Secondly there is no live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention. The detention order was passed by the Detaining Authority without applying its mind independently and without its subjective satisfaction. The incidents referred to by the Detaining Authority are not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the detenu would continue to indulge in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 10. As regards first ground it was further urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first crime on which reliance is placed by the detaining authority is alleged to have taken place on 21.12.2005 whereas the proposal was made by the Sponsoring Authority on 19.6.2006 and the detention order was passed by the Detaining Authority on 11.7.2006. Thus there was delay of more than six months in passing the detention order. As such on the ground of delay, the detention order needs to be quashed and set aside. In this respect reliance was placed on P. N. Paturkar .vs. S. Ramamurthi AIR 1994 SC 656 . 11. Firstly we would deal with the submission about alleged delay. It may be noted that two in-camera statements of witnesses .A. and .B. were recorded on 2.6.2006 and 5.6.2006. Soon thereafter proposal was moved by the Sponsoring Authority for detention of the detenu i.e. on 19.6.2006 and the detention order was passed on 11.7.2006. It was approved by the State Government on 17.7.2006 i.e. within the statutory period. Subsequently it was confirmed by the Statement Government on 22.8.2006. Thus there appears no delay in passing the order of detention. In P. N. Paturkar .vs/ S. Ramamurthi . AIR 1994 Supreme Court 656 detention order was set aside on the ground of delay of five months and eight days from registration of last case and more than four months from submission of proposal. Such is not the case in the present case. In the present case time was required for recording in-camera statements of witnesses A and B because of the terror created by the detenu by threatening them with life. Hence the ground of delay fails. 12. As regards second ground the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the activities of the detenu mentioned in the detention order do not affect the life of the community at large. Hence the ground of delay fails. 12. As regards second ground the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the activities of the detenu mentioned in the detention order do not affect the life of the community at large. The alleged activities cannot be said to disturb the even tempo of life. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged activities of the detenu cannot be said to be prejudicial to public order. He, therefore, submitted that material before the Detaining Authority was not sufficient for subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. Hence the detention order is patently illegal and liable to be set aside. In support of these submissions the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following cases: i) Arun Ghosh .vs. State of West Bengal 1970 (1) Supreme Court Cases 98 in which it was held as under:- .The disturbance of public order is to be distinguished from acts directed against individuals which do not disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public tranquility. It is the degree of disturbance and its effect upon the life of the community in a locality which determines whether the disturbance amounts only to a breach of law and order. The question whether a man has only committed a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause a disturbance of the public order is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the act upon the society. There is no formula by which one case can be distinguished from another.. In that case it was observed that all the acts involved were directed against a particular family and were not directed against women in general from the society. Hence the alleged acts cannot be said to amount to an apprehension of breach of public order. ii) In Lalan Prasad Chunnilal Yadav .vs. S. Ramamurthi & ors. VII-1992 (2) Crimes 952 (SC), it was held that : .the power to make orders of detention stem from the satisfaction of the detaining authority with respect to any person with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of .public order. and not prejudicial to the maintenance of .law and order.. iii) In Noor Alam .vs. M.N. Singh and ors 2 004(2) M h.L.J . and not prejudicial to the maintenance of .law and order.. iii) In Noor Alam .vs. M.N. Singh and ors 2 004(2) M h.L.J . 91 , it was held that : .The detaining authority has clearly erred in holding that the said incidents, if are taken cumulatively, would amount to creating a disturbance in the even tempo of life and, therefore, would come under the realm of being an act which is prejudicial to the public order. It was observed that: .Laxity in investigation and/or in the process of maintaining law and order can never be an excuse for treating every infraction of law and order as a public order situation.. In the above case reference was made to Ram Manohar Lohia .vs. State of Bihar A .I.R . 1966 SC 740 in which it was observed that: .One has to imagine three concentric circles. Law and order represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest circle represents security of State.. iv) In Commissioner of Police .vs. Smt.C Anita 2004 AIR SCW 4750, it was held that : .The crucial issue while dealing with cases of preventive detention is whether the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to .public Order.......... Public order could be affected by only such contravention which affects the community or the public at large........The question to ask is : Does it lead to disturbance of the current life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquility of the society undisturbed? This question has to be faced in every case on its facts....... The act affecting law and order may not be necessarily also affect the public order, likewise an act may affect public order, but not necessarily the security of the State. The true test is not the kind, but the potentiality of the act in question. The two concepts have well defined contours, it being well established that stray and unorganized crimes of theft and assault are not matters of public order since they do not tend to affect the even flow of public life.. 13. The learned APP on the other hand justified the detention order. The two concepts have well defined contours, it being well established that stray and unorganized crimes of theft and assault are not matters of public order since they do not tend to affect the even flow of public life.. 13. The learned APP on the other hand justified the detention order. The learned APP submitted that the incidents relied upon in the grounds of detention show that they lead to disturbance of the current life of the community so as to amount to disturbance of the public order. The learned APP submitted that there was adequate material before the Detaining Authority for its subjective satisfaction. He submitted that the action of executive in detaining a person being only precautionary, normally the matter has necessarily to be left to the discretion of the executive authority. He submitted that in the present case the detaining authority came to the right conclusion that the alleged acts of the detenu amounted to disturbance of the public order and as such the Detaining Authority was justified in detaining the petitioner's brother. In support of his submission, the learned APP placed heavy reliance on Rajesh Baburao Mudhale .vs. M .N.Singh . 2003 ALL MR (Cri.)401 (Bombay). 14. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We have also gone through the detention order (Annexure-A) as well as the grounds of detention (Annexure-B). The grounds of detention show that the detention order is mainly based on two crimes and two in-camera statements. Let us consider them in order to find out whether the allegations in those crimes and the in-camera statements are such as to lead to disturbance of the current life of the community so as to amount to disturbance of the public order or do they affect merely an individual leaving the tranquility of the society undisturbed? 15. It is alleged that on 21.12.2005 in the noon P.C. Ramesh Kisan Rathod of P.S. Ghatanji raided a gambling den and arrested Shankar Awadhootkar in presence of panchas, along with the materials of gambling and cash of Rs.50/-. While P.C. Rathod was completing legal formalities, the detenu came there along with his associate, accosted P.C. Rathod, scuffled with him, threatened him, took away the gambling materials and cash of Rs.50/- and also set free Shankar Awadhootkar who was arrested. While P.C. Rathod was completing legal formalities, the detenu came there along with his associate, accosted P.C. Rathod, scuffled with him, threatened him, took away the gambling materials and cash of Rs.50/- and also set free Shankar Awadhootkar who was arrested. On the basis of the report lodged by P.C. Rathod, Crime No. 195/2005 under sections 353, 506/34 of IPC was registered against the detenu. The incident had created a panic in general public. Nobody dared to come forward to the help of P.C. Rathod though it was crowded area. On 27.12.2005 the detenu was arrested and the property involved in the offence was recovered from him. After the detenu was produced before the Court, he was released on bail. After investigation charge sheet has been filed and the prosecution is pending. 16. Another incident is dated 23.3.2006. One Shyam Bhikuji Sonwane was found in unconscious condition. He was taken to Rural Hospital where he died. A suicide note was found in his pocket to the effect that he was beaten up by the detenu and Subhash Khandare, he could not bear it and so he committed suicide. Initially Accidental Death No. 14/2006 under Section 174 of Cr. P. C. was registered and on the next day i.e. on 24.3.2006 on the report lodged by the brother of the deceased, Crime No. 49/2006 under Section 306/34 of IPC was registered against the detenu. The detenu was absconding. His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Sessions Court at Kelapur. However, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to him. The detenu was directed to attend the Police Station at 11 a.m. on every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. However till 19.4.2006 the detenu did not attend the Police Station. The matter is under investigation. 17. The in-camera statement of witness .A. was recorded on 2.6.2006. His statement shows that the detenu indulges in Warli-Matka and country liquor. He always keeps weapon like knife and creates terror. In order to run his illegal activities, the detenu pressurizes Government Employees. He had assaulted the Tahsildar, the Police personnel, the MSEB engineer and looted Government money from them. Nobody dares to speak against the detenu. About 4-5 months back, the detenu beat his customer with cycle chain. The customer shouted for help but nobody dared to come forward to help him. He had assaulted the Tahsildar, the Police personnel, the MSEB engineer and looted Government money from them. Nobody dares to speak against the detenu. About 4-5 months back, the detenu beat his customer with cycle chain. The customer shouted for help but nobody dared to come forward to help him. When two-three persons came forward to take the injured customer, the detenu threatened them with life. Because of the threatening, nobody came forward to lodge report against the detenu. 18. The in-camera statement of Witness .B. was recorded on 5.6.2006. He reiterated the same allegations as stated by witness .A.. 19. From the above allegations it would be seen that assaulting and threatening a Police Officer while the latter was performing his duty certainly affects the public order. It cannot be said that such an act affected merely an individual leaving the tranquility of the society undisturbed. 20. Crime No. 49/2006 about abetment to commit suicide, however, cannot be taken as a matter of public order as it does not affect the even flow of public life. 21. In so far as the in-camera statements of Witness .A. and .B. are concerned, there is material to show that the sense of insecurity was created in the area due to illegal activities of the detenu. So though Crime No.49/2006 under Section 306/34 of IPC may not warrant the Detaining Authority to pass the detention order, the said order can be justified and sustained on the basis of Crime No. 195/2005 under Sections 353, 506/34 of IPC and in-camera statements of witnesses .A. and .B.. Thus the impugned detention order can be sustained by virtue of Section 5-A of the MPDA Act. The detention order cannot be said to be invalid or illegal. We find no force in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. We are of the considered view that the petition is liable to be dismissed on merits. We, therefore, proceed to dismiss the petition. 22. The Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.