The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of recording subjective satisfaction and compliance with constitutional safeguards under Article 22 in the context of preventive detention orders.

A.S. Oka, J.

1. An order of preventive detention was passed against the Petitioner on 2nd December, 2013 under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short “the said Act”). By order dated 18th January, 2014, the State Government in exercise of powers under Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the said Act revoked the order of detention and ordered release of the Petitioner. Initially, in this Petition, a prayer was made for quashing and setting aside the order dated 2nd December, 2013. Thereafter, an amendment was carried out and a prayer was incorporated for grant of compensation on account of wrongful detention of the Petitioner.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the issue of validity and legality of the order dated 2nd December, 2013 will have to be considered by this Court for the purposes of considering the case of the Petitioner for grant of compensation. Inviting our attention to the order dated 2nd December, 2013 (for short “the order of detention”), he urged that the recording of subjective satisfaction that it is necessary to preventively detain the detenu with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order is a condition precedent for exercise of power under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act. He invited our attention to the order of detention and urged that there is no such subjective satisfaction recorded in the said order. He also invited our attention to the grounds of detention served upon the Petitioner in accordance with Section 8 of the said Act. He urged that from the grounds it appears that the Petitioner was ordered to be preventively detained due to alleged criminal behaviour of the Petitioner and due to great fear in the mind of the members of the public about their safety. He urged that even in the grounds of detention, there is no subjective satisfaction recorded that the Petitioner being a dangerous person, his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He pointed out that the Detaining Authority has not recorded the subjective satisfaction after showing awareness about the orders of bail granted to the Petitioner in various criminal cases. He invited our attention to the relevant part of the grounds of detention wherein the Detaining Authority has relied upon the in-camera statements of witnesses A and B. He pointed out that satisfaction of the Detaining Authority about the truthfulness of the in-camera statements has not been recorded. He urged that various documents set out in ground G of the Petition which were incorporated in the list of relied upon documents were illegible and thus, clause 5 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India has been violated.

3. He urged that under the provisions of the said Act, the State Government is required to confirm/approve the order of preventive detention. He urged that the State Government is required to apply its mind to the order of detention. He submitted that the order of detention does not record any subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority in terms of Section 3 of the said Act and, therefore, it was the duty of the State Government to apply its mind to the contents of the order and the contents of the ground of detention before granting approval. He urged that if at that stage, there would have been an application of mind by the concerned Authority of the State Government, the Petitioner would not have continued in detention for a period of 45 days. He pointed out that a representation was made by the Petitioner through his Advocate on 3rd January, 2014 but the Petitioner was ordered to be released 14 days thereafter. He invited our attention to the reply filed by the Detaining Authority. He urged that the reply itself substantiates the case of the Petitioner. He pointed out that the Petitioner is a qualified Engineer who ha