JUDGMENT :

Mangesh S. Patil, J.

Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Addl. P.P. waives service for all the respondents. At the joint request of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

3. Invoking the powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is impugning the detention order no. 2022 DC-1/KAVI-485/2022/2531 dated 22-11-2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 - District Magistrate under section 3(1) 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 as MPDA Act) and confirmed by the State government under section 3(2) on 06-01-2023.

4. The grounds of detention were supplied to the petitioner as contemplated under section 8 of the MPDA Act on the same day of the order of detention i.e. 22-11–2022. It was mentioned in these grounds that he was a known and habitual bootlegger in the area of Akhada Balapur Police station and was engaged in transportation and selling of Gavthi (Taddi) in contravention of the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred as Prohibition Act). He would beat up people opposing business and due to fear and terror created by him, people were not coming forward to report the matter. As many as 10 crimes were registered against him under section 65E or 65F of the Prohibition Act. In recent past crime nos. 501 of 2022 dated 05-11-2022 and 511 of 2022 dated 09-11-2022 have been registered and investigation in which was going on and the rest of the cases were pending before the Court. Apart therefrom, there were two instances of chapter cases wherein action was taken under section 93 of the Prohibition Act and he was called upon to furnish the bond. It was also informed that samples in all the cases under the Prohibition Act was containing ethyl alcohol in excessive amount which was harmful to the human body. The statements of couple of witnesses were recorded in-camera and those were verified through the Sub Divisional Police officer, before respondent no. 2 - District Magistrate formed a subjective opinion that the activities of petitioner were prejudicial to the public order.

5. The petitioner presented representation on 28-11-2022 which was presented before the advisory board. The detention order was approved by the State government on 29-11-2022. The advisory board heard the petitioner on 15-12-2022 and submitted its report to the State government which confirmed petitioner’s detention on 06-01-2023.

6. Learned advocate for the petitioner challenges the order of detention on following grounds:-

(i) The order does not stipulate the period of detention which goes to the root of its validity and it is contrary to the decision in the matter of Lahu Shrirang Gatkal Vs. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and others; (2017) 13 SCC 519.

(ii) The order of detention refers to couple of recent instances of registration of offences under section 65E of the Prohibition Act which are stated to be under investigation. In rest of the crimes relied upon by the District Magistrate trials have been stopped under section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which, therefore, cannot form the basis to reach the subjective satisfaction.

(iii) The opinion formed by the District Magistrate does not indicate as to how the common law provisions are insufficient to deter the petitioner from disturbing the public order.

(iv) Except the offences under section 65E and 65F of the Prohibition Act, he has not been involved in any offences against human body or property.

(v) Through the recent two crimes bearing no. 501 of 2022 and 511 of 2022 have been registered, the petitioner has not been arrested and was merely served with a notice under section 41 and relies upon decisions of this Court in the matters of Prashant Bharat Datar V