HASAN KHAN IBNE HAIDER KHANversusR.H. MENDNOCA AND ORS.

A                       HASAN KHAN IBNE HAIDER KHAN
                                           v.
                            R.H. MENDNOCA AND ORS.

                                   MARCH 14, 2000

B                 [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]

           Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slum-lords, Boot-
     leggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 : Section 3(1).

            Preventive detention-Detenu-Breach of public order by-Detention
c    order-Detenu a notorious goonda of locality-Extorting money from resi-
     dents-Threat and assault to people-Held activities of detenu affected even
     tempo of life affecting public order-Detention order held valid-Held on
     facts there was no undue delay in passing the impugned order.

D         The appellant was detained under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra
    Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slum-lords, Bootleggers, Drug of-
    fenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981. The detention order was passed
    with a view to preventing the appellant from acting in any manner
    prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Gist of statement of wit-
    nesses recorded and stated in the grounds of detention revealed that the
E · appellant was a notorious goonda of the locality. He alongwith his associ-
    ates armed with deadly weapons used to collect money from the residents
    and assaulted those who refu.<1ed to pay. Because of the fear of the appellant
    none dared either to help the victims or inform the police. The detention
    order was unsuccessfully challenged before the Bombay High Court.
F
            In appeal to this Court it was, contended for the appellant that (i) the
     activities of the detenu constituted breach of law and order and not public
     order; (ii) there was delay in passing the detention order.

           Dismissing the appeal, this Coud
G          HELD : 1. The High Court rightly dismissed the petition of the
     appellant. The appellant extorted money from businessmen and also gave
     threats to the people at the public place and thereby undoubtedly affected
     the even tempo of life of the society. Such activities cannot be said to be
     mere disturbance of law and order. The activities of the appellant dis-
H    turbed the life of the people of the area. There is no reason to interfere
                                          272
             HASAN KHAN HAIDER KHAN 1( R.H. MENDNOCA                          273
with the order of the High Court. (275-F; C; A]                                       A
     Amanulla Khan Kudeatalla Khan Pathan v. State of Gujarat & Ors.,
(1999) 5 sec 613, relied on.

       Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh v. M.M. Mehta, Commissioner of Po-
lice, [19951 3sec  237, referred to.                                                  B
      2. In this case the. inquiry was completed during the last part of
February at the level of Deputy Commissioner of Police and the final
order was passed on 12.4.1999. It cannot be said that there was undue
delay in passing the order and action was being taken in a routine manner.
                                                                   [275-E]            C
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 286
of 2000.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 23.8.99 of the Bombay H'igh Court
in W.P. No. 590 of 1999.
                                                                                      D
      P.C. Jain, Aman Vachher for Mis. K.L. Mehta & Co. for the Appellant.
      H.W. Dhabe and S.V. Deshpande for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      PHUKAN, .J. Leave granted.                                                      E
      The appellant challenged the order of detention dated 12 the April,
1999, passed 'by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai under sub-
section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous
Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Dmg Offenders and Dangerous Persons
Act, 1981 read with Government Order, Home Department (Special) dated                 F
30th March, 1999, detaining the appellant with a view to prevent him from
acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order before
the High Court of Bombay by filing a writ petition which was dismissed and
hence this appeal.

        Before the High Court, the detention order was challenged on two
                                                                                      G
grounds, namely (1) the documents supplied to the appellant were illegible and
(2) if the alleged pr~judicial activities of the detenu were accepted on their face
value, they would demonstrate a breach of law and order and not public order.
The High Court r~jected both the grounds. Before this Court only ground
No. 2 has been canvassed.                                                             H
     274                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2000] 2 S.C.R.
A          We may refer to some of the grounds of detention which require out         ...
     consideration in view of tl1e contentions raised on behalf of the appellant.




B
            In tbe grounds of detention, reference had been made to a criminal
     proceeding registered against tl1e appellant and his associates wifu reference
     to occurrence which took place on 9.12.98. Harishchandra Gupta went near
     his place of business and noticed that his younger brofuer was being assaulted
                                                                                      -
     by fue appellant and his associates and when he rushed. to see his brofuer,
     appellant and his associates assaulted him and when Harishchandra Gupta
     and his brofuer sought for help, none dared to come forward for their help.
          Gist of the statements of witnesses "A and B'' recorded have been
c  stated in the grounds of detention and their entire statement have also been
   produced before this Court. From fue statement of witness "A", we fmd that
  Ahe appellant is a notorious goonda of the locality and with his associates
   moved about armed with deadly weapons and collected money from the
   residents and assaulted those who refused to pay. The appellant with his
D associates went ~o the fruit stall of this witness and took out a chopper and
   started threatening him by using filthy language and on seeing the incident
   the nearby vegetable and fruit vendors started running away with their
   baskets. The passerby also ran away to fright. From the statement of witness
   "B", we fmd that the appellant and his associates used to collect money from
   the businessmen on threats of assault and out of fear of the appellant none
E could dare to inform the police.

            This Court in Amanulla Khan Kudeatalla Khan Pathan v. State of
     Gujarat and Ors., (1999] 5 SCC 613 considered the expression "acting in any
     manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order'' and referring to
     earlier decision of this Court in Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh v. M.M.
F    Mehta, Commissioner of Police, [1995] 3 SCC 237 held that the fallout and
     the extent and reach of the alleged activities must be of such a nature that
     they travel beyond capacity of the ordinary law to deal with him or to prevent
     his subversive activities affecting the community at large or a section of
     society and it is the decree of disturbance and its impact upon the even tempo
G    of life of the society or the people of a locality which determines whether
     the disturbance caused by such activity amounts only to a breach of "law and
     order" or it amounts to breach of "public order".

           Mr. Jain, learned senior counsel for the appellant has urged that the
     above activities of the appellant were stray incidents and as such did not
H    disturb the public order.
      HASAN KHAN HAIDER KHAN v. R.H. MENDNOCA [PHUKAN, J.]                  275

      Applying the above ratio to the grounds of detention, we find that the        A
appellant extorted money from businessmen and also gave threats to the
people the public place and thereby undoubtedly affected the even tempo of
life of the society, therefore, such activities cannot be said to be mere
disturbance of law and order. The contention of Mr. Jain has no force.

       Mr. Jain has further urged that the criminal proceeding which was            B
started on the complaint of Harishchandra Gupta was under Sections 341, 323,
334, 504, 506(11) and 34 IPC and all these Sections were bailable and in fact
bail was granted and, therefore, this act cannot be said to disturb public order.
From the grounds of detention, we fmd that when Harishchandra Gupta and
his brother sought for help, none came forward for their help out of fear of        C
the appellant and this fact would show that the activities of the appellant
disturbed the life of the people of the area.

      In the grounds of detention, reference was made to the conviction of the
appellant under MRTP Act. According to Mr. Jain, this cannot be a ground
for detention of the appellant. Mr. Dhabe, learned senior counsel for the           D
respondent, has rightly submitted that reference was made to the above
conviction only to show the past criminal history of the appellant.

      Mr. Jain has further submitted that there was delay in passing the
detention order. We fmd that the inquiry was completed during the last part
of February at the level of Deputy Commissioner of Police and the final order       E
was passed on 12.4.1999. It cannot be said that there was undue delay and
action was being taken in a routine manner, as after completion of inquiry
matter had to be examined at various levels and fmally the orders were passed
by the Commissioner.

      For the reasons stated above we hold that the High Court rightly
                                                                                    F
dismissed the petition and we fmd no reason to interfere with the order of
the High Court.

      The appeal is dismissed.

T.N.A.                                                       Appeal dismissed.
                                                                                    G