It was contended on behalf of the State that it is common knowledge and experience that the detenu was engaged in extortion, rape, rioting, armed with deadly weapons, formation of unlawful assembly, obstructing the public servants in discharge of public function, murder, attempt to murder etc. which are serious offences against the public order and disturbance of peace and tranquility. Last two cases were under Sections 384, 294, 323, 506, 341, 385 and 386 read with Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. These offences were relating to extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt and by no stretch of imagination, these cases can be said to have resulted out of simple business rivalry. Since from the grounds, it was apparent that the detention of detenu was essential for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, therefore, petition filed on behalf of detenu deserved to be dismissed. In a rejoinder to the return of respondents, it was mentioned that out of 28 cases narrated in the grounds of detention, 26 cases were till the year 1997 and thereafter, from 1997 to 2009, there have been no instances of criminal cases being registered against detenu. Two cases registered in the year 2009 i.e. on 27.9.2009 and 29.9.2009 were got registered by sisters of one person namely Babloo @ Surendra Kumar Mehani, who is on inimical terms with detenu. As against Babloo @ Surendra Kumar Mehani, there were as many as 34 cases registered and an order of externment had also been passed. A copy of externment order has been filed as Annexure P/5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no material on record from which it could be inferred that the District Magistrate or the State Govt. considered the material on record that the case against the detenu was such in which ordinarily penal law or the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be exercised and that it was imperative to use the provision of the Act. He submitted that the registration of two offences of the incident dated 27.9.2009 and 29.2009 was in fact because of business rivalry between detenu and the brother of two complainants namely Smt. Roshni and Ku. Shalini Mihani. Brother of these complainants is hardened criminal and had encroached upon the land belonging to detenu while he was in jail in connection with a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. When the talks were going on for getting the said land vacated, false report was lodged.