Prakash D. Naik, J.

1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the Petitioner challenging the order of detention issued by the Respondent No. 1 on 13th December 2017 under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as M.P.D.A. Act for short). The said order was executed on 14th December, 2017.

2. The Petitioner was also served with the grounds of detention dated 13.12.2017 formulated by the detaining authority on the basis of which the impugned order of detention has been issued. The grounds proceed with the allegations that the Petitioner/detenu is a weapon-wielding dangerous desperado of violent character indulging in terrorizing activities. He has created a reign of terror in the locality. He moves around with his associates with deadly weapons and does not hesitate to use the same while committing the offences. He is a dangerous person as defined in the Section 2(b-1) of the M.P.D.A. Act and his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Paragraph 3 refers to the details of the previous offences and preventive actions initiated against the Petitioner. Reference is made to C.R. No. 67 of 2014 registered with Bandgarden Police Station, C.R. No. 270 of 2014, C.R.. No. 113 of 2015 and C.R. No. 342 of 2016 registered with the same Police Station as well as C.R. No. 100 of 2016 registered with Samarth Police Station. Paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention states that the Petitioner is a habitual and dangerous criminal involved in serious crimes. Paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention refers to the offences registered with Bandgarden Police Station, Pune vide C.R. No. 236 of 2017 under Section 323, 504, 506, 141, 143, 147 of IPC read with Section 7, 8 of the POCSO Act read with Section 67(b) of IT Act. The said case is pending in the Court. The grounds further refers to C.R. No. 291 of 2017 registered with Bandgarden Police Station, Pune for offences under Section 384, 323, 504, 506, 34 of IPC. The charge sheet is filed in relation to the said case and the proceedings are pending in the Court. Paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention refers to statements of witness 'A' and witness 'B' which were recorded in-camera to protect the identity of the said witnesses. Witness 'A' has referred to incident dated 23.10.2017 and witness 'B' has referred to incidents dated 25.10.2017. Both the witnesses have attributed overt act to the Petitioner/detenu.

3. Mr. Tripathi the learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submitted that one of the ground on which the Petitioner has challenged the order of detention is referred to in ground 5(b) of ground of challenge raised in the Petition. The said ground reads as follows.

“b. The Petitioner says and submits that in paragraph No. 1 of grounds of detention it is clearly mentioned by the detaining authority that the copies of documents placed before him on which he has relied on and formed his subjective satisfaction are enclosed which thereby means that total 93 documents running into 436 pages as per index of the compilation are placed before the detaining authority, which are relied on for formulating the grounds and considered for arriving at his subjective satisfaction. It is pertinent to note that in the same paragraph the detaining authority categorically states that he communicates the grounds as mentioned in paragraph No. 5.1, 5.2, 6.1 and 6.2 on the basis of which the order of detention is passed by him. It is thereby the material documents of the year 2014, 2015 and 2016 and preventive actions taken and their documents are extraneous which have influenced the mind of the detaining authority to pass the order of detention. This shows total non-application of mind of the detaining authority. The Petitioner further submits that th