The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following procedural safeguards and the necessity of material for subjective satisfaction in passing a detention order under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981.

JUDGMENT :

T. V. NALAWADE, J.

The petition is filed to challenge the order of detention made by the District Magistrate, Beed on 23rd May, 2020 against the Petitioner. The order is passed under the provision 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 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' or the “MPDA Act”). The order is approved and confirmed by the State Government and the Government has considered the opinion given by the Advisory Board constituted under the Act.

2. Both the sides are heard.

3. The order of detention was passed on 23rd May, 2020 and the grounds of detention were communicated to the Petitioner on 26th May, 2020. He was taken in custody and detained on 26th May, 2020. It was informed to the Petitioner that six crimes were registered against him in the past and in one case, which was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 379, 149 etc. of the Indian Penal Code, there was conviction against him. The information, which was supplied was as under:-

4. In the aforesaid order, it was also communicated to the Petitioner that even after registration of the crimes and conviction, the conduct of the Petitioner had not improved. It was informed that in the past, a proceeding for externment was stared against him and even chapter case was started against him as a preventive measure, but he did not improve his conduct. In the communication, details of the material available against him of the aforesaid matters, were given and it was also informed that there were statements of two witnesses, which were incamera statements, showing that he had become a threat to the public at large. It was informed that the District Magistrate had formed opinion that he had become a dangerous person as defined in Section 2(b1) of the Act. The offence, which was registered against him, C.R. No.116 of 2020, registered in the same police station was mainly considered against him along with the statements of two confidential witnesses. It was informed that the District Magistrate had formed opinion that the Petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and so the detention order was passed against him.

5. In the aforesaid order, it was also informed to Petitioner that he was entitled to make representation to the State Government against the detention order. It was informed that the Government is expected to refer the matter to Advisory Board, which is expected to give opinion about the material as to whether it is sufficient for detention purpose. It was informed that the Petitioner was entitled to make representation to the Advisory Board also.

6. The detention order came to be approved by the State Government on 29th May, 2020. As per the record, Advisory Board gave hearing to the Petitioner on 9th July, 2020 and sent opinion against the Petitioner to the Government. The Government confirmed the order of detention on 15th July, 2020. The record shows that the Petitioner had made representation to Advisory Board also.

7. The learned counsel for Petitioner submitted that if first offence, which was registered against the Petitioner in the year 2017 and the offence, which is of 2020 are considered, it can be said that there was no urgency to the authority to take such action and the action was delayed. It was submitted that only when the Petitioner was granted bail by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in the last crime, action came to be taken against him and so the action is malafide. It was submitted for the Petitioner that the two confidential witnesses could not have been believed by the District Magistrate in view of the nature of allegations made by them. It was submitted that there is discrepancy in the date of verification of these two statements made by the witnesses and the date of forwarding proposal by police to the D