M.G. Giratkar, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22-8-2017 passed by the respondent no. 2, Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City, Nagpur in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1) 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 'MPDA Act') thereby directing the petitioner to be detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

3. Heard learned counsel Shri Vyas for the petitioner. He has pressed following grounds in the petition.

(i) The order of detention passed by Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City, Nagpur, fails to mention period of detention and therefore on that ground only detention is liable to be quashed and set aside.

(ii) According to the provisions of Act of 1981, order of detention is required to be tested after every 3 months and the petitioner cannot be detain for uncertain and maximum period of detention. That being so order impugned is liable to be quashed and set aside.

(iii) The grounds of detention supplied by respondent no. 2 reveals that only one crime i.e. Crime No. 3056/2017 registered with Yashodhara Nagar Police Station for commission of offences punishable under Section 294, 506B, 341, 323, 34 of Indian Penal Code was considered, apart from two in camera statements. Crime no. 3056/2017 was registered on 10/04/2017 and offences mentioned in it were of bailable nature. The respondent no. 2 thus failed to take into consideration, nature of crime and effect thereupon. The activities mentioned in grounds of detention were not at all disclosing that petitioner was “dangerous person” and his activities were disturbing public order. Thus the order of detention is liable to be quashed and set aside.

(iv) The detaining authority did not supply true and correct translation of documents supplied to the petitioner, which has deprived the petitioner of submitting a representation effectively.

(v) Though in ground of detention it is stated “I hereby communicate to you the grounds as mentioned in Paragraph No. 4, below on which detention order has been issued”, but respondent no. 2 has taken into consideration, paragraph no. 5 also. Thus it is clear that the 'grounds' were never communicated to the petitioner, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khudiram. Only Crime No., Police Station and Sections are supplied and no basic facts of the offences were mentioned. The said approach adopted by respondent no. 2 has resulted into miscarriage of justice and therefore interference at the hands of this Hon'ble Court is required.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City, Nagpur fails to mention period of detention and, therefore, on that ground only, detention is liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. Joshi for the respondents. She has submitted that as per the scheme of the act, there was no any necessity to mention the period of detention under Section 3(1) of the MPDA Act. Respondent no. 1 in affidavit submitted a chart as under :

(i)	When the Detention is ordered by an officer empowered 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, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) whether the authorization by the State Government continues t