Detention orders must be justified based on the distinction between law and order and maintenance of public order, and the detaining authority must be aware of all relevant factors, including bail granted to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally.

2. The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is order of detention dated 31/08/2020 issued by respondent No.2. The grounds of detention and other documents were served on the petitioner. Respondent No.2 stated in the grounds of detention that in view of the criminal cases already registered against the petitioner, as also the fact that there was imminent possibility of his release from custody and that there was every likelihood of the petitioner indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, he was subjectively satisfied that the order of detention was necessary. Respondent No.2 also made reference to in-camera statements of two witnesses to come to a conclusion that there was real possibility of the petitioner indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

3. The petitioner has raised various grounds of challenge in the present writ petition to challenge the detention order. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner emphasized upon three main grounds of challenge. Firstly, it was submitted that the detention order stood vitiated because respondent No.2, detaining authority, was not even aware and also did not refer to the order dated 28/08/2020 passed by the Court of Magistrate at Solapur whereby bail application of the petitioner was granted. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, since respondent No.2 was not even aware about the said order being passed and the reasons given by the court for releasing the petitioner on bail, the detention order was clearly vitiated.

4. Secondly, it was submitted that although respondent No.2 referred to and relied upon in-camera statements of two witnesses, there was no conclusion specifically rendered by respondent No.2 to the effect that he believed the genuineness of the said statements. Thirdly, it was submitted that respondent No.2 did not have sufficient material on record to come to a conclusion that the activities of the petitioner would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order because the criminal cases registered against the petitioner were of personal nature pertaining to offences under certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC") and The Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 ("Money Lending Act"). It was submitted that respondent No.2 failed to appreciate the distinction between 'the law and order' on the one hand and 'the public order' on the other. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.2 failed to appreciate the well settled position of law in this regard.

5. On the other hand, affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents opposed the said grounds specifically pressed into service on behalf of the petitioner. In an affidavit dated 19/11/2020 filed by respondent No.2, detaining authority, it was stated that the proposal forwarded by the sponsoring authority was approved by the said respondent and that the grounds of detention were immediately dictated on 20/08/2020, while the order of detention was issued on 31/08/2020. It was further stated in the affidavit that during this period, the sponsoring authority had received the aforesaid order granting bail to the petitioner, dated 28/08/2020 and, therefore, copy of the same along with its translation was provided to the petitioner on 05/09/2020.

6. In the said affidavit, it was also submitted that the in- camera statements of two witnesses available on record clearly demonstrated the fact that the petitioner was a threat to public order and that the propensity of the petitioner to indulge in activities like extortion was evident from the material on record. On this basis, it was stated in the affidavit that the writ petition deserved to be dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of this court in the case of Lakhan Rohidas Jagtap v. Commission