Preventive detention requires clear evidence of public order disturbance; mere allegations without substantiation do not justify such measures.

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal is taken up for hearing.

3. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 20th August 2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition No. 698 of 2024, thereby dismissing the petition filed by the appellant herein.

4. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal are as under:

4.1 The District Magistrate, Parbhani passed an order under Section 3(2) of the The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug- Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MPDA Act’) and thereby detaining the appellant for a period of twelve months, so as to prevent him from indulging in the activities of bootlegging thereby preventing the maintenance of peace.

4.2 The detaining authority had basically relied on the six cases registered against the appellant by the State Excise Department. The grounds of detention were communicated to the appellant on 5th March 2024. The detention order was approved on 14th March 2024 by the Home Department and the confirmation order was passed on 8th May 2024 by the Government of Maharashtra. Several grounds were raised in the petition including the ground that there was no nexus with the alleged activities of the appellant and the order of the detention, inasmuch as there was a gap of about two and a half months between the proposal for detention being forwarded to the detaining authority and the detention order being passed. It is also submitted that the authority had acted in a mechanical manner and without there being any material, had passed the detention order. It was submitted that in any case, the alleged activities do not constitute a threat to the public order and they would fall amongst cases which can be dealt with by ordinary law and order machinery.

5. We have heard Shri Nachiketa Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Siddharth Dharmadhikari, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Maharashtra.

6. Though, arguments have been advanced on various issues and a number of authorities have been cited, we find that the appeal deserves to be allowed on a short ground, inasmuch as none of the activities which form the basis of the detention order can be said to be affecting public order.

7. The basis on which the proposal for detention is passed is the following six cases which are registered by the Authority against the appellant:-

8. Apart from that the detaining authority has also relied on the statements of two witnesses, who have not been named.

9. Insofar as all the six cases are concerned, they are pertaining to the illicit manufacture of handmade liquor. It is to be noted that these cases are register