JUDGMENT :

Mangesh S. Patil, J.

Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. At the request of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

3. The petitioner is challenging the order of his detention passed under section 3(2) of the 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 MPDA Act) dated 07-06-2022.

4. The learned advocate Mr. Ambilwade for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is grossly illegal on variety of grounds. The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is not based on proper appreciation of the circumstances and the material. Though the statements of couple of individuals have been recorded in-camera, the detaining authority has not verified the correctness of their statements and has not even verified if really they were not willing to testify. The offence which forms the basis for the authorities to initiate action under the MPDA Act was an agitation for a public cause. There is even delay in recording the in-camera statements. The offence was registered on 09-12-2021. The statements of these witnesses were recorded on 09-05-2022 and 12-05-2022, after lapse of more than six months and these circumstances would be fatal.

5. Mr. Ambilwade would further submit that the order of bail granted to the petitioner in that crime was also not placed before the detaining authority which lapse has been consistently held to be going to the root of the validity of the detention order. Even the timeline prescribed for placing the matter before the advisory board was not strictly adhered to and the order be quashed and set aside.

6. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. Mr. Nerlikar by referring to the affidavit in reply submitted that there was enough material before the detaining authority to demonstrate that the petitioner was a dangerous person. The authority has reached a subjective satisfaction on the basis of material by applying mind. The two witnesses have expressly stated about petitioner’s terror and have quoted individual incidents. Their statements have been got verified by the detaining authority through his subordinate officer of the rank of Sub Divisional Police Officer.

7. Mr. Nerlikar would further submit that the timeline provided under the different provisions of the MPDA Act has been strictly followed. There is a specific reference in the impugned order indicating as to how in spite of grant of bail, there is every possibility of petitioner indulging in dangerous activities as is mentioned in paragraph no. 8 which shows that the fact of release on bail was also considered.

8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the papers.

9. As far as the ground regarding legality of the satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority on the basis of the statements of couple of witnesses recorded in-camera, it does appear that both these witnesses mentioned about the individual incidents that had taken place with them wherein the petitioner threatened them. The record also demonstrates that the fact of such recording of the statements and the apprehension expressed by the witnesses has been duly verified by the detaining authority through the Sub Divisional Police Officer as appearing from the endorsement below those statements.

10. However, this Court in the matter of Pratap Ajay Kharate Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal writ petition no. 531 of 2021 decided on 28-10-2021 - Nagpur Bench) Sanjay Ramlal Shahu Vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal writ petition no. 768 of 2015 decided on 01-12-2016 – Nagpur Bench) both of which have been subsequently relied upon in Shaikh Yetal Vs. State of Maharashtra and others; 2022 All. M.R. (Cri.) 2561 (Criminal writ petition no. 627 of 2021 – Nagpur Bench) have taken consistent view that it is not sufficient for the detainin