Judgment :- S. Palanivelu, J. 1. The detenu himself is the petitioner. He has been clamped with the detention order dated 28.07.2007 by means of the proceedings in No.353/2007 by the second respondent, branding him as Goonda. 2. He came to adverse notice of J-6 Thiruvanmiyur Police Station as many as 13 cases. All have been registered under Section 379/380 I.P.C. in Cr.Nos.961/2006, 365/2007, 400/2007, 480/2007, 499/2007, 569/2007, 587/2007, 608/2007, 609/2007, 612/2007, 617 of 2007, 623/2007 and 625 of 2007. The facts of the ground case goes to show that one Sudhagar, who is working in a hotel on 7. 2007 at about 07.15 hours was proceeding at Indira Nagar, near the Youth Hostel to attend his work with his brother Lokesh. At that time, the detenu along with two other confederates by name Selvam and Jose @ Mariya Doss, who came in a cycle, wrongfully restrained Sudhagar and Lokesh. One of the confederates viz., Selvam took out a knife and by brandishing the same threatened them by holding over the neck of Sudhagar. At the same time Jose @ Mariyadoss caught hold of Sudhagar from his back side and the detenu caught hold of Lokesh, that Jose @ Mariyadoss and detenu snatched cell phones from Sudhagar and intimidated him if he raised voice, he would be done to death, that the public who were at the scene of crime, heard the hue and cry of the above said three persons and rushed to apprehend them, that the trio again threatened all of them by uttering, if anybody came near, they would be murdered, besides picking up stones from the roadside and pelted at them, the public were noticing the atrocious activities, ran for safer places out of fear of danger to their lives and properties; that the public who were proceeding in their vehicles on the busy road noticed the atrocious activities and feared to move further, resulting in traffic dislocation in that area, that all the above said three persons including the detenu created terror and panic on the spot, that however, Mr. Sudhagar, with the help of public surrounded and apprehended all the three persons and retrieved the knife, Cell phone and the watch and later they were taken to Tiruvanmiyur Police Station, where Mr. Sudhagar lodged a complaint and a case was registered in J6 Thiruvanmiyur Police Station Cr.No.629/2007 under Sections 341, 336, 392and 506(2)I.P.C. 3. Sudhagar, with the help of public surrounded and apprehended all the three persons and retrieved the knife, Cell phone and the watch and later they were taken to Tiruvanmiyur Police Station, where Mr. Sudhagar lodged a complaint and a case was registered in J6 Thiruvanmiyur Police Station Cr.No.629/2007 under Sections 341, 336, 392and 506(2)I.P.C. 3. Mr. V. Murali, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue in vehemence that since all the adverse cases registered against the detenu are under Sections 379 IPC alone, there was no prejudice to the maintenance of public order. It is his further contention that in the ground case, the detenu along with his confederates caused insecurity in the minds of people of the area is only a solitary instance which could not constitute a ground for passing detention order. In support of his contention, he cited a decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in 2003 (1) CTC 382 [Darpan Kumar Sharma @ Dharban Kumar Sharma vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others] wherein Their Lordships observed as follows: "6. In the present case, the three alleged incidents in which the Commissioner of Police has referred to are thefts arising under Section 379 I.P.C. And therefore, there is only a solitary instance wherein the detenu is alleged to have robbed in a public place one Kumar. Therefore, there is no marterial on record to show that the reach and potentiality of the single incident of robbery was so great as to disturb the even tempo or normal life of the community in the locality or disturb general peace and tranquility or create a sense of alarm and insecurity in the locality. Though in the grounds of detention the detaining authority had stated that by committing this offence in public the detenu created a sense of alarm, scare and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public of the area and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order which affected even tempo of life of the community, but citation of those words in the order of detention is more in the nature of a ritual rather than with any significance to the content of the matter. Thus, a solitary instance of robbery as mentioned in the grounds of detention is not relevant for sustaining the order of detention for the purposes of preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This ground is enough to quash the order of detention made by the respondents." In that case before the Honourable Supreme Court, there were three adverse cases under Section 379 I.P.C. and in the ground case, the detenu was found committed robbery of Rs.1000/- at the knife point and disturbed even tempo of public life. After considering the circumstances of the case, Their Lordships were of the view that the solitary instance does not make out a ground and citation of words in the order of detention are in nature of ritual rather than natural. 4. In the case on hand, the detenu allegedly committed the offence of theft in public places. In the second adverse case in Cr.No.365 of 2007 on 24. 2007 the detenu and his associates committed snatching of cell phone from one Arun Balaji while he was walking on the road near the police booth opposite to Beach Road in Kalakshetra Colony, Chennai-90, in the 3rd adverse case in Cr.No.400 of 2007 on 5. 2007 at 9.15 p.m at M.G.Road, Pazhamudir Solai shop, Thiruvanmiyur, the detneu and his confederates snatched cell phone from Selvi Akshaya while she was walking on the road. In the 4th, 5th and 6th adverse cases also, facts go to the effect that the detenu along with his friends committed theft of cell phones from the respective complainants while they were going in public places. 5. As far as 7th adverse case in Cr.No.587 of 2007 is concerned at New Beach Extention, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Tiruvanmiyur, the detenu and his associates committed snatching of gold thali chain from one Tmt. Vijayalakshmi, while she was walking on the beach and she struggled with them and recovered only a small piece of thali chain and the snatchers were escaped. The above said facts covered by the adverse case would go a long way to show that all the said offences were committed by the detenu and his associates in the public places and naturally the public peace and tranquility were in peril. The above said facts covered by the adverse case would go a long way to show that all the said offences were committed by the detenu and his associates in the public places and naturally the public peace and tranquility were in peril. Even though those cases have been registered under Section 379 IPC, the offences were committed in public places, in the midst of number of persons. Certainly they would have caused panic and insecurity in their minds. While these aspects are closely scrutinized by this court, it is to be held that the detenu cannot take recourse to the principles laid down in the decision above mentioned. Worthwhile it is to note that all the occurrences in the adverse cases and ground case took place within the limits of J-6 Thiruvanmiyur Police Station, Chennai which shows that the detenu has frequently involved in the identical offences. 6. As far as the facts of the case are concerned, ground case could not be stated to be a solitary instance of disturbing the public tranquility. As adverted to supra, the detenu involved in committing the offences in public places and the ground case is not a solitary instance. Hence the argument made on behalf of the detenu is incorrect. 7. In the cases where identical situation arose, this Court has taken consistent view that if the detenu is in the habit of committing the offence disturbing the public peace and order, the action of the detaining authority to detain him as per law could not be found wrong. This Court in the order passed in H.C.P.26 of 2003 on 110. 2004 [A. Prabhu vs. The State of Tamilnadu rep. by the Chief Secretary to Government and another] observed as follows: ".....One more distinguishing feature is that all the eleven offences have taken place only within the jurisdiction of K.K. Nagar Police Station and in all the matters, the detenu was arrested by the staff of the said police station. If the incident of thefts are too many in a singular locality coupled with the offence of house breaking then it is bound to disturb the even tempo of public life, as in that case the public may not feel safe. In that way, the law laid down in Dharpan Kumars case would not apply to the facts of the present case. No other point was urged before us. In that way, the law laid down in Dharpan Kumars case would not apply to the facts of the present case. No other point was urged before us. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed." 8. In the Order of H.C.P. No.388 of 2005[Viji vs. The State of Tamilnadu and another], this Court on 27. 2005 has held as under: "8. It is also relevant to refer another Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in HCP No.773, dated 10. 2004, wherein, the Bench has held that in a case of series of theft in a particular area, chain snatching, etc., would positively effect public order. In the present case, the grounds of detention make it clear the detenu has four adverse cases to his credit, out of which, three relate to offence under Section 379 IPC, and the first one relates to offences under sections 147, 341, 307 and 506(ii) IPC. The occurrence in the ground case relates to offence under Sections 341, 427, 336 and 332 r/w 506(ii) IPC. In the light of his antecedents and various cases referred to and the particulars furnished, as rightly observed in the decisions referred above, particularly in HCP No.773 of 2004, order dated 10. 2004, we are of the view that the Detaining Authority cannot be faulted in detaining the detenu under Tamil Nadu ACT 14 of 1982." 9. In yet another decision of the Division Bench of this Court in H.C.P.No.518 of 2005 [Mrs. Thayappa vs. The State of Tamilnadu and another] rendered findings as mentioned below: “4. As far as the last point is concerned, it is no doubt true that in the decision reported in 2003 (1) C.T.C. 382 (Darpan Kumar Sharma @ Dharban Kumar Sharma vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others) there is only one incident of robbery which was treated as a ground case and all the earlier adverse cases were registered under Section 379 I.P.C. But in the case on hand, besides three adverse cases for offences under Section 420, 379 and 420 respectively, there is yet another adverse case wherein an offence under Section 392 I.P.C. had come to be registered. In that case also, at knife point in a broad day light, robbery was committed. In that case also, at knife point in a broad day light, robbery was committed. From the perusal of the grounds of detention it is seen that after the detenu and his associates were making good their escape after committing the robbery, the victim raised a hue and cry, which attracted the attention of the passersby. In other words, the ground case occurrence had taken place at 7.15p.m. namely at the thick of the evening hour in a busy throughfare. When the victim, along with the public, attempted to apprehend the detenu and his associates, they scared the public by not only threatening them with dire consequences namely, "If anybody tries to apprehend them, they will stab and pull out the intestine" but also picked up the stones available there and pelted them indiscriminately at the public. As a result of such conduct, the public were put in a state of insecurity which affected their normal life. Having regard to the fact that the incident referred to in the ground case had taken place during evening time in a busy throughfare and having regard to the overt acts attributed to the detenu and his associates, when they were attempted to be apprehended, we are of the considered opinion that no infirmity can be found in the order of detention when it concluded that the act of the detenu caused an alarm and a sense of insecurity in the mind of the passersby. 10. In the light of the consistent judicial opinions rendered by this Court and consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case, it ought to be held that the petitioner has been disturbing the maintenance of public order on many occasions and the ground case is not a solitary one. There is no reason to hold that the detention order is bristled with illegality. It is not at all vitiated by any of the circumstances available in this case, which does not suffer from any infirmity also. 11. Having regard to the facts of the case we are of the considered view that there is no valid ground to quash the impugned detention order. The petition does not merit consideration. In fine, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.