JUDGMENT :

S.S. SHINDE, J

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The Petitioner Mohamad Ishaq Mohamad Ismail Shaikh, who is the father of Detenu Haji Mohammad Ashfaq Mohammad Isak Shaikh, has preferred this Petition questioning the preventive detention order passed against the dentenu on 17th October, 2019 by Respondent No. 1 – Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai. The said detention order has been passed under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Dangerous persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MPDA Act’). The said detention order has been issued as, according to the Detaining Authority, the Detenu is a Dangerous person whose activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention order is based on one Crime i.e. C.R. No. 137/2019 occurred on 03/07/2019 registered with V.P. Road Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 37(1)(a) read with 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and two in-camera statements of witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’, recorded.

3. Though 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/Detenu has pressed only seven grounds before us i.e. Ground Nos. ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘F’, ‘L’, ‘O’, ‘P’ and ‘Q’. Those grounds are reproduced herein below in verbatim:-

A. The Petitioner says and submits that the orders annexed and marked at Exhibits “A” and “B” are manifestly erroneous and patently illegal in as much as the same are based in total defiance to the facts of the case, and the said orders also display a complete non-application of mind and is malafide on the part of the Detaining Authority.

B. The Petitioner says and submits that by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order entailing his detention under the provisions of the said Act. None of the activities of the detenu, as mentioned in the grounds of detention, can be said to be disturbing the maintenance of public order and as such the orders are obviously illegal, bad in law, malafide, unconstitutional and unsustainable.

F. The Respondent No. 1 is bound to produce for the scrutiny of this Hon’ble Court the proposal and the findings for the detenu’s detention, relied upon by Respondent No. 1 in formulating the grounds of detention. If the grounds of detention are no more than a repetition of the proposal with minor grammatical and consequential variations, there cannot be a greater proof of non-application of mind. It is well settled that the liberty of a Subject is a serious matter and the same cannot be trifled with any such casual, indifferent and routine manner. The Respondent No. 1 is called upon to state whether before formulating the grounds of detention, he did go through the opinion of different subordinate officers, if any, written on the said proposal. The Respondent No. 1 having gone through the opinion of his subordinate Officers and having been influenced by them in formulating the grounds of detention and in the passing of the detention order, then the said detention order suffers from non-application of mind and is illegal, malafide, unconstitutional, null and void.

L. The Petitioner says and submits that the Sponsoring Authority having been satisfied that the detenu’s activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and also his being at large was danger to the society at large, ought to have opposed the bail application, tooth and nail and thereafter ought to have challenged the bail order before the superior courts rather than resorting to an action under Preventive Detention. The Petitioner says and submits that the Sponsoring Authority did not even oppose the bail application nor ask for stay of the said bail orde