The detaining authority must satisfactorily explain any delay in passing a detention order and must apply its mind and arrive at subjective satisfaction based on the grounds of detention.

JUDGMENT

S.S.SHINDE, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The Petitioner is mother of the detenue who is detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act").

3. It is the case of the petitioner that a detention order, bearing No. PCB/DET/555/2021 dated 0303.2021 was issued by Respondent No. 1, wherein it has been stated that with a view to prevent the detenue from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to detain him under the said Act and, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by sub Section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, read with Government order, Home Department (Special) No. 1220/CR-200/Spl-3B, dated 06.01.2021. Respondent No. 1 directed that the detenue be detained under the said Act. The detenue was served with the said detention order and along with the said detention order, another order of same date was sent, directing the detenue to be detained in Yerwada Central Prison, Pune under the conditions laid down in the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders (Conditions of Detention) Order, 1981. The detenue was also served with the communication purportedly issued by Respondent No. 1, containing the grounds of detention on the basis of which the detention order was issued, and the documents accompanied with its translation, alleging that the said grounds of detention have been formulated on the basis of said material. Being aggrieved by the said orders as mentioned herein before the petitioner has filed this petition by invoking writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites our attention to the grounds (A) to (H) in para 6 of the petition and submits that the orders passed by Respondent No. 1 display complete non application of mind and malafide on the part of the detaining authority. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the activities of the detenue are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order entailing his detention under the provisions of the said Act. None of the activities of the detenue, as mentioned in the grounds of detention, can be said to be disturbing the maintenance of public order. It is submitted that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of two months in passing the order of detention by Respondent No. 1 inasmuch the last alleged offence registered against the detenue is on 04.01.2021 and the detention order has been passed on 030.3.2021. It is submitted that due to the delay of two months the live link between the passing of detention order and registration of last offence has been snapped. The compilation of documents which has been relied upon while passing the detention order are running into 375 pages and same were placed before the detaining authority to formulate the grounds of detention, arrive at subjective satisfaction and ultimately to pass the order of detention. The detaining authority has relied upon the extraneous material as it is mentioned in para 8 of the grounds of detention that Respondent No. 1 has relied upon the material mentioned in Para 50.1, 5.2, 6.1 and 6.2 of the grounds of detention to pass the order thereby the detaining authority has taken into consideration extraneous material pertaining to other crimes of year 2016, 2017 and 2020.

5. It is not clear from the grounds of detention whether Respondent No. 1 before formulating the grounds of detention, as a matter of fact, gone through the opinion of different sub ordinate officers written on the said proposal. The detaining authority has relied upon the statements of two witnesses A and B recorded in-camera for arriving at subjective satisfaction for issuing the detention order. It is submitted that the aforesaid two statement