HASAN KHAN IBNE HAIDER KHAN versus R.H. MENDNOCA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 272 · Decided: 14-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
HASAN KHAN IBNE HAIDER KHAN 
v. 
R.H. MENDNOCA AND ORS. 
MARCH 14, 2000 
[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 
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 
G 
H 
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 
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-
turbed the life of the people of the area. There is no reason to interfere 
272 
HASAN KHAN HAIDER KHAN 1( R.H. MENDNOCA 
with the order of the High Court. (275-F; C; A] 
273 
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-
A 
lice, [19951 3 sec 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. 
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. 
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 
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 
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. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
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. 
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 we
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.