Bharati, H. Dangre, J.

1. The petitioner/detenu, detained in furtherance of an order dated 6th September, 2017 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Thane has approached this Court praying for quashing and setting aside the order and for his release forthwith. The petitioner detenu has been detained by the impugned order of detention passed by respondent no.2 in exercise of the power conferred by sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Blackmarketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short “MPDA Act, 1981”) and directing him to be detained in Taloja Central Prison, Navi Mumbai. The petitioner was served with the grounds of detention on the very same day.

2. The petitioner assails the detention order on various grounds, as set out in the petition. On reading of the petition and upon hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner Shri. U.N. Tripathi, we find sufficient substance and force in ground (h) raised in the petition and on hearing the learned APP, appearing on behalf of the respondents, we feel it unnecessary to advert to the other grounds raised in the petition, since we have arrived at a conclusion that the said ground has sufficient substance and hence we proceed to deal with the said ground.

3. In the petition, the petitioner has raised ground (h) to the following effect;

(h) “The Petitioner says and submits that in the grounds of detention dated 06.09.2017 the detaining authority has clearly stated that the copies of documents placed before him on which he has relied upon and formed his subjective satisfaction which are enclosed. It is pertinent to note that as per the index of the compilation of documents, there are 84 documents running into 181 pages in total, which include various documents of various C.Rs of the year 2012 to year 2016 along with the documents which are referred to and on the basis of which satisfaction is arrived at by the detaining authority is taken into consideration. It is therefore, the detaining authority has taken into consideration extraneous material i.e. 81 pages document which are neither relevant nor proximate for taking preventive action under M.P.D.A Act, 1981. The Petitioner submits that these extraneous material have influenced the mind of the detaining authority to initiate action under preventive laws. Moreover, the detaining authority nowhere in the grounds of detention have clearly spelt out or segregated about which are the documents merely referred to and not relied on whereas in paragraph No.1 it is stated that all documents are relied upon for forming subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The satisfaction of the detaining authority vitiates since extraneous materials are taken into consideration. The order of detention is illegal and bad in law, liable to be quashed and set aside.”

This ground has to be read together with ground (a) and (b) which read as follows:

(a) The Petitioner says and submits that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention mechanically in a very casual and cavalier manner without applying his judicious mind which is clear from the grounds urged in this Writ Petition. There is total non-application of mind of the detaining authority. The order of detention is illegal and bad in law, liable to be quashed and set aside.

(b) The Petitioner says and submits that the Detaining Authority has referred to and relied on a case vide C.R. No. I-08 of 2017 under Section 48(7) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The details of the incident of this C.R. is narrated in paragraph 4(a) (I) of the grounds of detention. The Petitioner says and submits that he is categorized as a dangerous persons as defined in Section 2(b-1) of M.P.D.A. Act, 1981. The Section 2(b-1) contemplates the definition of 'dangerous person' which is as under :

“Dangerous persons means a person, who e