Point of Law: Preventive Detention – Dangerous Person – Detention order set aside - It is well settled that subjective satisfaction requisite on part of detaining authority, formation of which is a condition precedent to passing of detention order will got vitiated if material or vital facts which would have a bearing on issue and would influence mind of detaining authority one way or other are ignored or not considered by detaining authority before issuing detention order.

JUDGMENT :

N.J.Jamadar, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the Counsels, heard finally.

2. The petitioner-detenue takes exception to the order dated 12.05.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Solapur-Respondent No.1 preventively detaining the detenue in exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of 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 (MPDA Act).

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts leading to this Petition can be stated as under:

a) A proposal was initiated to detain the detenue under the provisions of Section 3 of the MPDA Act, as the activities of the detenue rendered him a dangerous person. It transpired that, the detenue and his associates roamed around in the areas falling within the jurisdiction of Salgar Vasti, Faujdar Chawadi, Jail Road and Jodbhavi Peth Police Stations, Solapur and habitually committed serious offences like assault, extortion, robberies and land/property grabbing armed with deadly weapons like sword and knife etc. The activities of the detenue allegedly caused alarm and insecurity amongst the general public.

b) Despite preventive action having been initiated against the detenue under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, there was no element of deterrence and the detenue continued to indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Two fresh offences were registered against the detenue; (1) C.R. No. 29/2021 at Salgar Vasti Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 384, 385, 506, 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (Penal Code) and (2) C.R. No. 57/2021 on 07.04.2021, also at Salgar Vasti Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Penal Code.

c) On account of reign of terror created by the detenue, persons were not coming forward to lodge complaints against the detenue fearing safety of their life and property. The sponsoring authority recorded statements of two witnesses in camera. The confidential statements revealed that the detenue was persistently indulging in activities subversive of public order. Respondent No.1, thus, recorded a subjective satisfaction that the detenue was a dangerous person and in order to prevent him from acting in a manner which was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, in future, it was necessary to detain the detenue. Thus, the impugned order of detention under Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act was passed and the grounds of detention were served on the detenue on 12.05.2021.

4. The detenue has assailed the impugned order on the premise that it betrays a clear non-application of mind and tramples upon the personal liberty of the detenue in a most casual and cavalier manner. To this end, multifold grounds are raised in the petition. During the course of arguments, however, Ms. Jayshree Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner-detenue restricted the challenge to the ground Nos.(b), (c) & (d), namely,

(i) discrepancy and variance in the English and Marathi version as regards the narration of the facts in the grounds of detention pertaining to C.R. Nos. 29/21 and 57/21, which rendered the right to make an effective representation illusory,

(ii) failure to furnish vital documents again prejudicially affecting the right to make representation, and

(iii) the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that the activities of the detenue were subversive of public order being completely vitiated.

5. Affidavits-in-reply have been fled by respondent No.1 and on behalf of respondent No.2. The respondents have contested the claim of the detenue that the variance in the English and Marathi version in the narration of facts affected the right of the detenue to make an effective representation. Since the detenue is fully conversant with Ma