JUDGMENT :

Bharat P. Deshpande, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the parties with consent.

2. The petitioner through his father is questioning the legality or otherwise of the impugned order dated 20/10/2022 passed by respondent No.2 / District Magistrate, Amravati 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 (MPDA Act), along with order passed by respondent No.1 dated 24/11/2022 confirming the detention, for a period of 12 months from the date of order of detention.

3. Shri Anil Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that both the impugned orders are bad in law, without application of mind and without recording subjective satisfaction about the activities allegedly carried out by the detenue. He would submit that the detention order is basically violating the principles on four grounds. Firstly, he submitted that there is no interaction with the Witnesses 'A' and 'B' either by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) or by the Detaining Authority to record their subjective satisfaction or correctness of the statements given by the witnesses. Secondly, he claimed that the Detaining Authority failed to consider the bail orders passed in different matters. The copies of such bail orders were not furnished or produced before the Detaining Authority and that such fact has not been considered before passing the detention order. Thirdly, he claimed that the alleged activities of the detenue are mostly against individuals and would at the most amount to law and order problem, but not against the public order. Lastly, he claimed that there is unexplained delay in service of confirmation order on the detenue, which resulted in filing effective representation or the petition. Shri Anil Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following decisions:-

[i] Criminal Writ Petition No.360/2022 (Sachin Gajananrao Telgote Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, decided on 04/01/2023. [ii] Criminal Writ Petition No.73/2022 and other connected matters (Smt. Bismilah wd/o Sheikh Rahim Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, decided on 21/10/2022, [iii] Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (1992) 1 SCC 1, [iv] Criminal Writ Petition No.470/2006 (Manoj s/o Dilip Trivedi Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, decided on 02/02/2007, [v] Elizabeth Ranibhai Prabhudas Gaikwad Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, decided on 15/02/2021 and [vi] Criminal Writ Petition No.477/2021 (Indragol Debaji Ramchawre Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, decided on 27/10/2021.

4. Shri A.M. Kadukar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2-State, per contra, submitted that the grounds of detention give all the relative details, which clearly goes to show that the Detaining Authority considered entire material placed before it and arrived at subjective satisfaction which, according to him, is based on legal principles. There is no illegality committed by the Detaining Authority while taking such drastic step. He would submit that SDPO had interaction with both the witnesses, visited place mentioned by them and only thereafter, submitted his report, which has been perused by the Detaining Authority as part of material. He then would submit that the bail orders were considered by the Detaining Authority which are reflected in the grounds of detention. He further submitted that the activities in which detenue is involved affect the public order and there is fear in the mind of persons residing in the locality which is preventing them from approaching Law Enforcing Agency as well as the Court to depose freely against the detenue. He then submitted that the instances considered by the Detaining Authority is having live lin