The central legal point established in the judgment is that to detain a person as a 'slumlord' under the M.P.D.A. Act, the detaining authority must establish a direct link between the activities of the detenue as a slumlord and the disturbance of public order.

SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J :

1. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned APP for State. The petitioner/detenue Nagesh Laxman Takmoge has preferred this petition questioning the preventive detention order passed against him on 30th July, 2016 by respondent no.1 i.e. Commissioner of Police, Solapur. The detention order has been passed in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the 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 (for short “the M.P.D.A. Act), as the detenue is a dangerous person, as well as, a slumlord. The said order of detention is based on one C.R. i.e. C.R. No. 311 of 2016 of Vijapur Naka Police Station, Solapur and two in-camera statements of Witness “A” and Witness “B”. The order of detention, grounds of detention alongwith accompanying documents were served on the detenue on 29th January, 2017.

2. Though a number of grounds have been raised in the present petition, whereby the detention order has been assailed, however, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has pressed only one ground before us i.e. Ground-F. Briefly stated, in Ground-F, it is averred that the detaining authority has detained the detenue as he is subjectively satisfied that the detenue is a “dangerous person” and “slumlord”. However, there is no material disclosed in the grounds of detention to show that the detenue can be detained as a slumlord. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, though in the grounds of detention, it is averred that the detenue is a slumlord, there is nothing in the grounds of detention to show that the activities of the detenue as a slumlord were in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Mr. Tripathi, contended that under the provisions of the M.P.D.A Act, the detaining authority must show, firstly that the detenue is a slumlord as averred in the grounds of detention and thereafter should show that the activities of the detenue as a slumlord were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Mr. Tripathi, thus contended that only if it can be shown that the detenue is a slumlord and in addition his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, only then a person can be detained under the M.P.D.A. Act as a slumlord.

3. Mr. Tripathi, thus contended that, if there is no material to show that the activities of the detenue as a slumlord are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, then a detention order detaining the detenue as a slumlord cannot be sustained. To support his contention, Mr. Tripathi, placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Edvin Moses Palanna @ Palana Vs. Commissioner of Police & Anr. (dated 10th October, 1988 in Cri. Writ Petition NO. 957 of 1988)(Coram :- Jahgirdar & Tipnis, JJ). In the said decision, it is observed that the detaining authority has to bear in mind, the distinction between a person being a slumlord and his activities as a slumlord being prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It was further observed as under :-

“That a person is a slumlord itself is not enough to attract exercise of the power under Section 3 of the 1981 Act. Besides, being a slumlord, in his capacity as a slumlord a person must pose a threat to the maintenance of the public order. It is only when his activities as a slumlord affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order that a person can be detained under the said Act.”

In the above case, as there was no material to show that the activities of the detenue therein as a slumlord were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was held that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that, it is necessary to detain the detenue as he is a slumlord, is not supported by any material. Hence, the detention order was quashed.

4. Thus, it is seen that befo