V.K. Tahilramani, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner/detenu Ramesh Balu Chavan has preferred this petition questioning the preventive detention order passed against him on 22.11.2016 by respondent No. 1 - the Commissioner of Police, Solapur. The said detention order has been passed in exercise of the powers under Section 3(2) 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 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment - 1996, 2009 & 2015) (hereinafter referred to as the "MPDA Act"). The said order has been passed as the detenu is a bootlegger whose activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health. The said detention order is based on three C.Rs. and two in-camera statements of witness "A" and witness "B". The three C.Rs. are 245/2016, 257/2016 and 276/2016 of Jodbhavi Peth Police Station, Solapur. The order of detention, grounds of detention along with accompanying documents were served on the detenu on 22.11.2016.

3. 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 four grounds before us. They are grounds (i), (g), (b) and (d).

4. Ground (i) is in relation to the averment of Detaining Authority in para 05(b-i) of the grounds of detention. It is stated that the averment in the said ground is absolutely vague and no details have been disclosed or any material is provided in support thereof. It is stated that five averments are made in this paragraph in the grounds of detention which are as under:-

(1) many people were hiddenly running many dens;

(2) In past, many accidents took place;

(3) Drunken people tease ladies, create unhygienic atmosphere by vomiting in street;

(4) many people have become bankrupt;

(5) since last many years.

Mr. Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that these five averments in the grounds of detention are not based on any material. The allegations made are too general and there are no specific incidents mentioned, hence, there is non application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority which would result in vitiating the order of detention.

5. We have perused paragraph 05(b-i) of the grounds of detention. It pertains to witness "A". Learned APP placed reliance on the statement of in-camera witness "A" and showed us that all these averments were made by in-camera witness "A" in his statement. On perusal of the statement of in-camera witness "A", we find that all these averments which have been made by the Detaining Authority in paragraph 05(b-i) are found in the statement of in-camera witness "A". Thus, there was material before the Detaining Authority to make these averments in the grounds of detention and the material on which this averment was made, has admittedly been furnished to the detenu i.e. in-camera statement of Witness "A". Thus, we find no merit in this ground.

6. Mr. Tripathi thereafter pointed out that in the said paragraph, it is also stated, "But there is constant demand to curb criminal activities of you and your associates, from the people and traders of locality." He submitted that there was no material before the Detaining Authority to make this averment in the grounds of detention, hence, there was non application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority, which would vitiate the order of detention. As far as this contention is concerned, it is seen that no such ground has been raised in the present petition, hence, strictly speaking the petitioner should first raise the ground and thereafter, the respondent should be given an opportunity to deal with the said ground by filing appropriate reply and then only the ground can be considered. However, learned APP Mr. Yagnik