The period of detention can be fixed by the State Government after the opinion of the Advisory Board is received, and the impugned order directing detention for twelve months at one go does not suffer from any illegality.

Mangesh S. Patil, J.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides the matter is heard finally.

2. This is a petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad in case no. D.O.2017/MPDA/DET-3/CB-31 dated 30.06.2017 under the provisions of Section 31 of the Maharashtra Preventive Detention Act, 1970 and under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlord, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the MPDA Act). Similarly he is challenging the order passed by the State Government approving the detention and directing him to be detained for a period of twelve (12) months on the basis of the report submitted by the advisory board constituted under the MPDA Act.

3. Shortly stated the impugned orders have been passed on various grounds justifying the conclusion that the petitioner is a dangerous person within the meaning of the MPDA Act. In support of such conclusion the following facts are stated to have weighed with the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad and the State Government. There are as many as seven criminal cases pending trial against him for variety of serious charges like attempt to murder, kidnapping and abduction, robbery and breach of the order of externment passed under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. In spite of preventive measures in the form of institution of chapter case under Section 110 of the Cr.P.C. And the order of exterment under the provisions of Maharashtra Police Act, the anti-social activities of the petitioner have not abated. On the contrary his such activities are on the rise. In-camera statements of couple of witnesses were also recorded and the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad after having been satisfied with the material collected and mentioned herein-above, by the impugned order (Exhibit-A) directed the petitioner to be detained under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the MPDA Act.

4. The case of the petitioner was further considered by the advisory board constituted under Section 9 of the MPDA Act and on its advise, the State Government by the impugned order dated 18.08.2017 directed detention of the petitioner to continue for a period of one year from the date of detention by invoking the powers conferred on it under Section 12(1) of the MPDA Act.

5. Hence this writ petition.

6. We have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. According to him, the basic vice from which the impugned orders suffer is the fact that the inquiry seems to have been completed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad when under the powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the MPDA Act, the Commissioner of Police himself should have inquired into and should have reached the subjective satisfaction about the petitioner being a dangerous person. He having not done so, the impugned order passed by him is not sustainable in law. The learned Advocate further submitted that the maximum period for which the petitioner could have been directed to be detained is only six months and the impugned order of the State Government directing his detention beyond the period of six months is illegal. Learned Advocate submitted that though it has been mentioned in the grounds of detention furnished to him while passing the impugned order the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad had not supplied him the copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded in-camera and the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to verify those statements. The learned Advocate lastly submitted that the grounds are not sufficient for a man of ordinary prudence to reach a conclusion to which the Commissioner of Police had reached.

7. The Commissioner of Police has contested the petition by his affidavit