BHARATI, H. DANGRE, J.

1. The petitioner/detenu, detained at Yerwada Central Prison under the provisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981, has approached this Court praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order of detention dated 27/9/2017 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Solapur and thereupon seeking his release forthwith.

The impugned order of detention is passed by respondent no.1 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 Black-marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short “MPDA Act, 1981”). In the grounds of detention, the detaining authority had referred to number of offences registered against the detenu. The said offences are registered under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 in the year 2015 and 2016. The grounds of detention also makes a reference to the preventive actions initiated against the detenu in the year 2016. Though in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has categorically mentioned that he is not relying upon the previous offences to pass the impugned order but these offences are reflected only to highlight his previous criminal history. The grounds of detention, then, sets out that the order of detention is based on two offences, namely, C.R. No. 0237/2017 and C.R.No. 0434/2017, both registered under Section 65(e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 with the Faujdar Chawadi Police Station. The grounds of detention, thereafter, refer to the two incamera statements of residents of Solapur and based on this material, the detaining authority has formed the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is a free person and his tendency previously reflected from the offences committed by him in the recent past, there was likelihood of the detenu resorting to similar activities, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health. The detaining authority recorded a satisfaction that the detenu is a habitual bootlegger and it is necessary to detain him. The grounds of detention, then, inform the detenu of the rights which he could avail in terms of the Constitutional safeguards.

2. The impugned order of detention is assailed on several grounds. However, on hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Udaynath Tripathi, we are convinced that the writ petition needs to be allowed on the very first ground which has been putforth before us by the learned Counsel and which is reflected in ground (b) of the writ petition.

(b) The Petitioner says and submits that while recording the satisfaction in paragraph 7 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has taken into consideration six prohibition cases, in all these cases samples were sent to Chemical Analysis, opinion obtained and conclusion drawn that the facts relating to said C.R. resulting to cause danger to public heath. However, the detaining authority has taken only 2 prohibition cases for passing order of detention, thereby the detaining authority has taken into consideration extraneous material. The satisfaction of detaining authority vitiates. The order of detention is illegal and bad in law, liable to be quashed and set aside.

By referring to the said ground as raised in the petition, the learned Counsel invited our attention to the grounds of detention on him. In the opening paragraph 1 of the grounds of detention communicated to the detenu, the detaining authority has observed as follows :

In pursuance of section 8' of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders,