JUDGMENT :

Sunil B. Shukre, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

2. It is seen from the impugned orders that what really weighed with respondent no.1 and 2 was pendency of seven criminal cases against the petitioner. All the seven cases were in relation to the offences allegedly committed under various Sections of Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. In short, these offences only gave a narrative of boot legging tendencies of petitioner. Such tendencies of petitioner, by the preventive detention orders impugned herein, have been tried to be painted with the colour of fear and terror overpowering the mind of the members of public. If this is so, it would have been necessary for respondent nos. 1 and 2 to have taken into consideration some of the fundamental facts which would have had far reaching consequences on reaching of subjective satisfaction regarding need for preventive detention of petitioner felt by these respondents. These facts were in the nature of bail having been granted to the petitioner in each of the seven offences presently pending against the petitioner as these very offences have been considered by the respondents as constituting suff