The detention order under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act was upheld based on the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction that the detenu's activities were prejudicial to public order.

JUDGMENT

M.G.Sewlikar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. By consent of both the sides, heard fnally.

3. Challenge in this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order of detention passed by respondent No.2 dated 12.03.2020 and confrmed by respondent No.1 by order dated 18.03.2020. This detention is under Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-ofenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the MPDA Act).

4. Facts leading to this petition are as under:

The petitioner (hereinafter called as detenu) is an Indian citizen and resident of Aurangabad. It is alleged that the detenu was served with the order of detention dated 12.03.2020 alleging that the detenu is a dangerous person and he has committed serious ofences i.e. robbery, voluntarily causing hurt in in committing robbery, attempt to commit robbery when armed with deadly weapon, voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons, insult intended to provoke breach of the peace, criminal intimidation etc. The detenu had created reign of terror near the City Chowk Police Station area and his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Owing to his criminal activities the persons residing in the jurisdiction of the City Chowk Police Station and adjoining areas are in constant fear. The detenu has criminal antecedents. Following is the list of ofences detenu has committed and the preventive action taken against the detenu:-

5. Despite taking preventive action against him, the detenu has continued to engage himself in criminal activities and to prevent him from committing ofences, he is required to be detained. After recording subjective satisfaction, respondent No.2 passed order of detention of the detenu dated 12.03.2020. On 14.03.2020, proposal was forwarded to the Advisory Board for approval. On 18.03.2020 approval was received from the State Government. The detenu made the representation of 22.04.2020 which was turned down by the Advisory Board vide its decision dated 23.04.2020.

6. While passing detention order, the detaining authority considered two ofences i.e. Crime No.359 of 2019 under Sections 392, 394, 398, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Crime No.15 of 2020 under Sections 394, 324, 323 of the IPC. Both have been registered with City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad. The detaining authority also considered statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' and recorded its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and therefore, by its order dated 12.03.2020 directed detention of the detenu for a period of one year from the date of detention. The Chronology of the events is as under:-

7. The detenu has challenged the order of detaining authority dated 12.03.2020, confrmed by the State Government on 18.03.2020 and the order dated 24.04.2020.

8. Heard Shri R.A.Jaiswal, learned counsel for the detenu and Mr.M.M.Nerlikar, learned APP for the State.

9. Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2, the detaining authority, passed the order of detention belatedly. He submitted that the last ofence alleged to have been committed by the detenu was on 08.01.2020, wherea