JUDGMENT - SMT. DESAI RANJANA, J.:---The petitioner is detained under an order of detention dated 7-10-2002 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, under the provisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short, the MPDA Act). The order of detention and grounds of detention along with the material in support thereof, were served on the petitioner on 20-11-2002. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the said order of detention.

2. The order of detention rests on two cases and two in-camera statements. The first case is C.R. No. 171 of 2002 under sections 324 and 506(ii) read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The second case is C.R. No. 174 of 2002 under sections 386 and 387 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The Detaining Authority has relied on in-camera statements of witnesses "A" and "B" recorded on 1-8-2002. Witness "A" has deposed about an incident which took place in the first week of July, 2002 when the petitioner and his associates threatened him with chopper and asked for Hafta. Witness "B" has deposed about an incident which took place in the fourth week of June, 2002 when the petitioner and his associates threatened him with chopper and asked for hafta. On the basis of these two cases and the two in-camera statements, the Detaining Authority has observed that he is subjectively satisfied that the petitioner is a dangerous person within the meaning of section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act. He has further stated that the petitioner had unleased a reign of terror and has become a perpetual danger to the society at large in the localities of Kumbharwada, P.B. Marg and areas adjoining thereto in the limits of V.P. Road Police Station in Brihan Mumbai. It is further stated that the people in the above localities are experiencing a sense of insecurity and are living and carrying out their daily avocations under a constant shadow of fear, whereby the even tempo of the life of society in the above localities is badly disturbed. It is further stated that the action taken against him under the normal law of the land is found ineffective and inadequate to put a stop to his criminal activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. Awareness is expressed of the fact that the petitioner has availed of bail facility. Apprehension is expressed that if the petitioner is not preventively detained, he is likely to indulge in similar activities in future.

3. We have heard at some length Mr. Tripathi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. He submitted that the order of detention deserves to be set aside because the Detaining Authority has stated that the grounds of detention are mentioned in paragraph 4. In paragraph 4, he has stated that the complainant-Mr. Pradeep Dayaram Chowrasia knows the petitioner as gangster affiliated to Arun Gawali gang. Mr. Tripathi submitted that the Detaining Authority was, therefore, influenced by the fact that the petitioner is a member of Gawali gang. However, barring the statement of the complainant, there was nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner is a member of Gawali gang. No material in support of the above statement is supplied to the petitioner though he has demanded it. This averment is not based on any documentary evidence. If it is based on some extraneous material, it is not supplied to the petitioner and, therefore, the order of detention should be set aside.

4. We are unable to accept this submission of the learned Counsel. Firstly, it is clear from paragraph 4(a) that the Detaining Authority has merely reproduced what the complainant has stated in his complaint that the petitioner is affiliated to Arun Gawali gang. It, therefore, cannot be concluded from this that the entire order of detention is based on this fact or the Detaining Authority is influenced by this fact while passing the order of detention. In any event, we find that the