JUDGMENT :

Bharat P. Deshpande, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and correctness or otherwise of the detention order passed by respondent no.1 on 30.7.2022 and confirmed by respondent no.2 on 14.9.2022, thereby detaining the petitioner for a period of one year from the date of taking him in custody, under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Blackmarketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short, “Act”).

3. Heard Mr. Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Thakare, learned APP for the respondents - State at length.

4. Reply-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent no.1 strongly opposing contentions raised in the petition.

5. Basically three submissions were advanced by Mr. Kalra, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging both orders. It is his first contention that the order of detention and more specifically, the confirmation of respondent no.2 under Section 12 of the said Act dated 14.9.2022 for detaining the detenue for a period of 12 months at a stretch is wholly illegal and contrary to the provision of Section 3 of the said Act. While elaborating his submission, he would submit that the proviso to Section 3 (2) of the said Act mandates that at the initial stage, the Authority has power only to issue detention order for a period of six months, which could be extended from time to time but, not more than twelve months. In this respect, Mr. Kalra heavily placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad in the case of Balu S/o Waman Patole Vs. The Commissioner of Police and others in Criminal Writ Petition No.155/2019 decided on 26.3.2019.

6. The second limb of his argument is that bail orders were not considered by the Detaining Authority and, therefore, there is no subjective satisfaction arrived at by considering the entire material. He would submit that the Detaining Authority failed to consider that the detenue was granted bail in one of the matters, which forms part and parcel of the consideration.

7. Thirdly, Mr. Kalra would submit that statements of the witnesses were not verified by the concerned authority and there is nothing on record to show that the Detaining Authority was satisfied that such witnesses genuinely disclosed the fear that they would not be able to attend the Court, if required. He then would submit that there is a delay in passing the detention order from the date of the last offence and such unexplained delay vitiates the proceedings. According to him, the last offence in which the detenue was booked, took place somewhere in April 2022 whereas the detention order is passed in July 2022. In this respect, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court delivered by the coordinate bench in the case of Alakshit S/o Rajesh Ambade Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another in Criminal Writ Petition No. 626/2022 dated 20.12.2022. In connection with delay of passing the detention order, he placed reliance on the decision in the case of Shivkumar Madeshwaran Devendra Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition No.3309/2021 decided on 15.6.2022. Lastly, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Bismilah Wd/o Sheikh Rahim Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition No.73/2022 and connected matters decided on 21.10.2022.

8. Per contra, learned APP vehemently opposed the contentions raised in the present petition and would submit that it is well settled proposition of law that the Detaining Authority need not specify the period of detention in the order. He submitted that even if the detention order is silent about the period of detention, it wo