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