LALLAN PRASAD CHUNNILAL YADAV Vs. B RAMAMURTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Special leave granted. Learned counsel have been heard in this matter relating to a preventive detention.

(2.) This criminal appeal in substance is a petition for habeas corpus in which challenge has been made to the detention order dated 1-6-1991 effected on 21-7-1991, whereunder the appellant was detained under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act, 1981. The attempt of the appellant to challenge the detention order failed twice before he approached the third time in a writ petition before Bombay High Court on a new ground. That challenge too failed which has given rise to this appeal. But here the said ground too has been abandoned and the only ground to which the appellant has now shifted in his special leave petition is that acts attributed to the appellant which furnish grounds for his detention, do not fall squarely within the activity/ activities in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of "public order" even though he may be termed as a "bootlegger". Strong reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in Omparkash v. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1990 SC 496 wherein in the facts of that case it was found that the material available on the record was not sufficient and adequate for holding that the alleged prejudicial activities of the detenu had either affected adversely, or were likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of "public order" as envisaged under section 4(3) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985, - a measure akin to the Maharashtra statute afore-named. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra relied on a decision in Mrs. Harpreet Kaur Harvinder Singh Bedi v. State of Maharashtra, (1992) JT 1 (SC) 502 : (AIR 1992 SC 979) in which this Court has drawn distinction between activities affecting "public order" and those which affect the maintenance of "law and order". This Court observed (para 18 of AIR) :

(3.) The facts in that case when analysed led to the conclusion that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of "public order". Now the exercise herein is whether the acts attributed to the appellant are in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of "public order"