S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging an order of detention issued by respondent No.3 under 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 (“the MPDA Act” for short). The order of detention is dated 12-9-2017.

2. In the order of detention the Detaining Authority records the subjective satisfaction by observing that the activities of the detenu and highlighted in paras 2, 3 and 4 of the detention order would indicate that he was involved in criminal cases. The criminal cases are set out in a Table. After that, it is stated that in order to curtail the criminal activities, some preventive actions were taken, including an order of detention dated 22-9-2014.

3. It is stated that since the detenu was released on bail in C.R. No. 202 of 2014, that detention order could not be executed and with great difficulty the detenu was traced out, the order of detention was executed and he was taken in custody.

4. In paragraph 5, the order of detention refers to the recent incidents and that is a case of threatening people and spreading terror within the jurisdiction of Shivaji Nagar Police Station. The externment proceedings also had no impact. There was a wedding ceremony and where the detenu came at the venue, drunk and was abusive. Pertinently, all this resulted in the registration of a non-cognizable case at the Shivaji Nagar Police Station on 26-4-2017.

5. Then, on 10-5-2017, an incident took place, where an offence was registered, punishable under Sections 307, 452 and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code r/w Sections 4 & 25 of the Indian Arms Act. That was registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station vide C.R. No.186 of 2017. The detenu was proceeded against in this case as well and on arrest, he was produced before the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla. The detenu was remanded to police custody till 5-6-2017 and on that date he was remanded to magisterial custody till 19-6-2017. An application for bail was filed, but as the detenu was remanded to judicial custody and which was extended till 7-8-2017, now, the charge-sheet has been filed on 7-8-2017.

6. However, after this incident is narrated, the order of detention refers to two in camera statements and which incamera statements narrate the incidents of April and May, 2017. The first incamera statement of Witness “A” was recorded on 6-7-2017, which refers to the incident of the second week of May, 2017. The second incamera statement of Witness “B” was recorded on 9-7-2017.

7. Based on the above, the Detaining Authority records a satisfaction that the detenu is a dangerous person within the meaning of the said expression and defined in the MPDA Act. He has unleashed a reign of terror, he is a perpetual danger to the society at large in several localities adjoining to and within the jurisdiction of Shivaji Nagar Police Station. The Detaining Authority says that, on a careful perusal of these materials he was satisfied that the detenu is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is in these circumstances that, in para 7, it is stated that though the detenu is not granted bail in connection with Shivaji Nagar Police Station C.R. No. 186 of 2017, but that offence being not punishable with death or life imprisonment, in future he can make an application for bail and get it. All the more, because he has already been charge-sheeted. After becoming a free person and being a criminal, he was likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future and that with a view to prevent him from acting in such a prejudicial manner, it is necessary to detain him.

8. It is such a detention which is challenged in this petition on several grounds.

9. After the writ petition was filed,