The apprehension that the activities of the detenue are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order is sufficient for invoking the provisions of the MPDA Act.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.

1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner is challenging his detention 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 (Maharashtra Act No. LV of 1981) (Amendment Act, 2015), hereinafter referred to as “the MPDA Act.”

2. Facts leading to this petition are that on the proposal of detention by police station Dindrud dated 31.8.2020, the District Magistrate Beed passed order of detention under Section 3 of ‘the MPDA Act’ and communicated the same to the petitioner under Section 8 of the MPDA Act.

3. In the said notice, the District Magistrate, Beed (Respondent No. 2) has stated that the petitioner is a weapon-wielding dangerous recidivist of violent nature indulging in criminal activities that foster terror in the society. Respondent No. 2 has further stated in the notice that the petitioner has become perpetual danger to the lives and properties of people residing in the vicinity and carrying out their daily activities and vocations in the jurisdiction of Dindrud Police Station. It is further alleged that the petitioner manufactures sells and possesses illicit liquor. He has created terror in the locality in which he resides. He has engaged himself in violent criminal activities and also threatened the people not to complain against him. The notice further states that as many as 9 offences have been registered against the petitioner under Section 65 (e) and (f) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. All these offences are pending in the Court. The list of the offences pending against the petitioner is as under:

4. Despite initiating criminal prosecution against the petitioner, he has not mended his ways, on the contrary his illegal and dangerous criminal activities have continued to show an ascending trend.

5. It is further alleged that to deter the petitioner from committing crime, preventive action under Section 110 of Code of Criminal Procedure and 93 of Maharashtra Prohibition Act was initiated against the petitioner, the details of which are as under:

6. Despite executing a bond of good behaviour, the petitioner has committed these offences. It is further alleged that the petitioner even after, executing a bond of good behaviour has committed another offence. It is further alleged in the notice that in-camera statements of witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ were recorded. From those statements and the offences registered against the petitioner, the Detaining Authority formed the opinion that the petitioner is a ‘Bootlegger’ and his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. His activities adversely a