RANJANA DESAI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the detenu") is detained by the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai under an order of detention dated 30 April, 2004 issued under the provisions of the Maharashtra prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and dangerous Persons Act, 1981 ("the said Act" for short), with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In this petition, the detenue has challenged the said order of detention.

( 2 ) THE order of detention is based on one C. R. being C. R. 20 of 2004 and two in-camera statements of witnesses "a" and B recorded on 16 March, 2004 and 19 March, 2004.

( 3 ) SHRI Tripathi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on three grounds. He firstly contended that the grounds of detention do not indicate that the detenus activities have posed a threat to the maintenance of public order. He submitted that C. R. 12 of 2004 refers to an incident which had taken place in a hotel. It cannot be said that the said incident which had taken place in a hotel room could have affected the public order. Shri Tripathi also contended that the in-camera statements also are stereotype and do not inspire confidence. He submitted that the detention order could not have been based on the in-camera statements.

( 4 ) WE are unable to agree with the learned Counsel. The incident in respect of which C. R. 12 of 2004 is registered has taken place on 16 January, 2004. On that day Kamlesh Udaypratap Singh went to attend to his hotel business at Hotel shiv Mahal situated at Darukhana, Sewree at 20. 30 hours. After mid-night on 17 january, 2004 he was standing at STD booth of Ramesh in front of the Hotel shiv Mahal. At that time the watchman of the hotel Shri Jagdish Dubey and one anand Ghadge were performing their duty at the gate of the said hotel. The detenu and his associate Pappu Khan went there and threatened Kamlesh. They asked him to close down the hotel immediately. When Kamlesh pleaded with the detenu and his associate not to disturb his business, the detenu threatened him and told him that if he wanted to conduct his business, he would have to give him rs. 50,000/- as hafta. Kamlesh expressed his helplessness and said that he cannot give so much amount. The detenu and his associate were annoyed by that reply. They climbed the staircase of the hotel and barged into the dancing hall on the first floor. Kamlesh followed the detenu. In the hall the detenue and his associate started abusing and threatening the customers and sending them out of hotel. Kamlesh and others requested the detenu and his associate not to behave in such a manner but the detenu and his associate abused, fisted and pulled them away. Due to the fear the customers in the dancing hall rushed down. The detenu and his associate abused the dancing girls. The detenu also fisted and pulled a dancing girl by nameRanjita, due to which she collapsed on the floor. Out of fear the other dancing girls left the hall and went to hide in the dressing room. The hotel thereafter bore a deserted look. The detenu and his associate left the place and while leaving threatened Kamlesh that if he wanted to continue the hotel business, he must give him Rs. 50,000/- per month, otherwise he would be killed. Kamlesh was scared. He did not go to the Police Station to lodge his complaint immediately. After mustering courage he went to Sewree Police Station on the next day and lodged his complaint. We have no manner of doubt that this incident had affected the public order. The facts narrated above clearly indicate that the customers were sitting in the hotel. The dancing girls were performing on the stage. The customers were driven out of the hotel by the detenu and his associate by giving them threats. Hafta was demanded. This incident certainly affects public order.

( 5 ) IN our opinion, the two in-camera statem