R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges his detention which has been ordered by the respondent No. 1 by the order dated 30th September, 2003 issued in exercise of the powers under the Maharashtra prevention of Dangerous Activities of slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and dangerous Persons Act, 1981, hereinafter referred to as "mpda Act". The detention of the petitioner was ordered with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order was executed on 24th August, 2004.

( 2 ) THOUGH the impugned order is sought to be challenged on various grounds, it is not necessary to refer to all those grounds and suffice to consider the ground in relation to the non-application of mind to changes in the circumstances with the passage of time from the date of issuance of the order till the date of execution thereof inspite of the fact that there was a gap of nearly one year from the date of issuance of the order of detention and execution thereof.

( 3 ) WHILE assailing the impugned order, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that undisputedly the order of detention has been issued on the basis of three grounds, viz. (i) relating to the alleged involvement of the petitioner in criminal offence in respect of which a complaint was registered as C. R. No. 166 of 2003. He further submitted that when the impugned order dated 30th September, 2003 was passed, the petitioner was already on bail in the said C. R. No. 166 of 2003, whereas when the said order was executed on 24th August, 2004, the petitioner was already in the judicial custody with effect from 17th August, 2004. Inspite of the said changes in the circumstances, the detaining authority without application of mind, as to whether the detention of the petitioner in terms of the MPDA Act is necessary or not, sought to execute the detention order dated 30th September, 2003 which was issued nearly one year prior to the date of its execution.

( 4 ) RELYING upon the decisions in the matters of Binod Singh Vs. District magistrate, Dhanbad, Bihar and Ors. , reported in AIR 1986 SC 2090, Smt. Shalini soni Vs. Union of India and Ors. , reported in air 1981 SC 431, Salma Rehman Khan vs. M. N. Singh and Ors. , reported in 2001 all MR (Cri) 2063, Nafis Ahmed Ansari vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , reported in 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 2131 and of Shri. Mohd. Ayub Alimuddin Shaikh @ chikana Ayub Vs. Shri. M. N. Singh and ors. , reported in 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 1915, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the law is well settled that failure on the part of the detaining authority to consider the developments subsequent from the date of issuance of the order of detention till its execution would render detention order to be illegal as the same would disclose non-application of mind by the detaining authority in relation to the detention of a person sought to be detained, and therefore, the petitioner should be ordered to be released forthwith. He further submitted that the affidavit in reply filed by the concerned authorities confirms the fact of non-application of mind by the detaining authority to the said aspect.

( 5 ) THE learned APP, on the other hand, placing reliance in the decision of the apex Court in the matter of T. P. Moideen koya Vs. Government of Kerala and Ors. , reported in 2004 AIR SCW 5364, submitted that merely because the petitioner had surrendered before the learned Magistrate and the order of detention was served upon him while in custody, that itself would not lead to a conclusion about non-application of mind by the detaining authority to the events subsequent to the issuance of the order of detention against the petitioner. He further submitted that the decision in Moideen koya's case (supra) clearly rules that if che detaining authority considers the aspect regarding the need of detention of the detenu under the preventive detention inspite of the fact that the detenu had b