JUDGMENT :

N.B. Suryawanshi, J.

1. The petitioner by this petition questions the legality and validity of the detention order dated 14th February, 2019 at Exhibit 'A' by which the petitioner was directed to be detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred as 'the said Act' for short).

2. Rule was granted in the Petition vide order dated 11th April, 2019.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

4. We have gone through the record.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pressed into service the ground Nos. 5(g), 5(i), 5(n), 5(j) to challenge the impugned order of detention.

(i) He submits that the impugned detention order is vague as in paragraph No. 4(a) of the said order, a vague statement is made as 'many cases are registered against him and his associates'. He, therefore, submits that the said term is vague and there are no details given which has caused prejudice to the petitioner/detenu.

(ii) He further submits that though it is alleged that the petitioner/detenu has formed a gang of like-minded criminals from the above areas, no details of the gang members are given and hence the impugned order is vague. He relied upon the judgment reported in (1989) 4 Supreme Court Cases 43 in the case of Abdul Razak Nannekhan Pathan Vs. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad & Anr., in support of his contentions.

(iii) He further states that illegible document was served on the petitioner, which was relied upon by the detaining authority, while passing the detention order. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of this court in the case of Munna Dilawar Khan Vs. The Commissioner of Police & Ors. in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3953 of 2013 dated 06th January, 2014 to support his contention that if the document supplied to the petitioner is illegible, the same vitiates the detention of the petitioner. He further submits that translation of the judgment relied upon by the detaining authority was not made available to the petitioner and on that ground also the impugned order is unsustainable.

(iv) It is further submission that the satisfaction recorded in paragraph No. 11 of the grounds of detention is not genuine and the competent court has granted bail in all the three cases, so also the preventive actions like chapter cases and externment cases are dropped for defective orders by the competent authorities. Thus, the impugned detention order is vitiated. Reliance is also placed in the case reported in (1990) 2 Supreme Court Cases 629 in the case of Vashisht Narain Karwaria Vs. State of U.P. & Another. The learned counsel, therefore, urged that the impugned detention order is vitiated and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

6. The learned APP supports the impugned order.

(a) It is argued that the alleged illegible document, which is referred by the petitioner, is his own bail application and the order passed thereon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, is clearly legible.

She has relied on the judgment reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1191 in the case of Mst. L.M.S. Ummu Saleema Vs. B.B. Gujaral & Anr., to urge that the order passed on the bail application which the petitioner claims to be illegible was only referred and was not relied upon, and hence, it is not necessary to furnish the copies of documents of which casual or passing reference may be made in the course of narration of facts and which are not relied upon by authority in making the order of detention. She has further pointed out the reply affidavit filed by the detaining authority, wherein it is averred that the Marathi transcription of the order 'issue notice, returnable on 29/11/2018 was not given to the detenu at the time of execution of order of detention, but said order has been explained to him in Marathi a