JUDGMENT :

PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

1. Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India and assailed the Order of Detention dated 27th April, 2022 issued by the Respondent No. 2 under the provisions of 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 (for short ‘M.P.D.A. Act’) directing that, the Petitioner be detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention dated 27th April, 2022 on the basis of which the Impugned Order of Detention was issued and the documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority were supplied to the Petitioner/detenu.

2. The grounds of detention stipulate that the Impugned Order of Detention is based on the offence registered against the Petitioner vide C.R. No. 138 of 2022 with Faujdar Chawadi Police Station on 7th March, 2022 under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 336, 327, 354, 452, 323, 324 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) r/w Sections 4 and 25 of Indian Arms Act. The Detention Order is also based on statements of two witnesses recorded in camera on 19th March, 2022 and 22nd March, 2022. The Detaining Authority was subjectively satisfied that the Petitioner is acting in manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

3. The first ground urged by learned Advocate for Petitioner is that the incidents in question considered by Detaining Authority for issuing Order of Detention would at the most affect the law and order situation and not maintenance of public order. The incident in C.R. No. 138 of 2022 had occurred in the house of complainant. It is between individuals and has no connection with society at large. The statements of witnesses A and B were recorded on 19th March, 2022 and 22nd March, 2022 respectively. These witnesses have referred to the alleged incident which had occurred in second week of February-2022 and fourth week of February-2022. The subjective satisfaction as to how and what manner the acts of the Petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order is not found in the grounds of detention. It is no where mentioned in the grounds of detention as to how the acts and conduct attributed to the Petitioner has caused breach of public order or it had disturbed the even tempo of public life. The acts attributed to the Petitioner were mostly individualistic in nature. The statements of said witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ were recorded after the Petitioner was granted bail in C.R. No. 138 of 2022. While the Petitioner was in custody the said witnesses did not come forward to depose against the Petitioner. The statements do not inspire confidence.

4. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwar Shaw vs. District Magisrate, Burdwan and Another, (1964) 4 SCR 921 and decision of this Court in Shivkumar Dadeshwaran Devendra vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, dated 15th June, 2022 delivered in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3309 of 2021.

5. Learned APP submitted that the facts reflected in C.R. No. 138 of 2022 and the incidents referred to by witnesses A and B clearly indicate that the incidents were affecting maintenance of public order and not merely law and order situation. On the basis of material related to C.R. No. 138 of 2022 and the statements of witnesses A and B which were verified as true the Detaining Authority came to the conclusion that the Petitioner is dangerous person within the meaning of Section 2(b-1) of the M.P.D.A. Act and that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

6. The second ground urged by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner is that the Detaining Authority has considered past criminal cases of the Petitioner. Those are stale cases which lacks the proximity with the impugn