The grounds on which an accused is granted bail form important part of the material available against such a person and must be considered by the Detaining Authority while passing the order of detention.

JUDGMENT

SUNIL B.SHUKRE, J. - Heard.

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

3. By this petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality and correctness or otherwise of the detention order passed by respondent no. 2 on 2/7/2022 under Sec. 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug- offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short, "the MPDA Act"). The petitioner has further challenged the order dtd. 26/8/2022 passed by respondent no. 1 under Sec. 12 of the MPDA Act and thereby confirming his detention order dtd. 2/7/2022. The petitioner has also challenged the order of delegation of power dtd. 24/6/2022 passed by the Home Department thereby delegating power of passing detention order upon the District Magistrates and Police Commissioners mentioned therein.

4. We would first consider the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for respondents/State in respect of the challenge made to the delegation order dtd. 24/6/2022.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delegation order issued by the State Government in exercise of its power under Sec. 3(2) of the MPDA Act conferring power upon the Police Commissioners and District Magistrates to pass preventive detention order in terms of Sec. 3(1) of the MPDA Act is bad in law, as it does not record the satisfaction as contemplated in law. According to him, the impugned order does not refer to any material and does not record any reasons, on the basis of which it could be said that the circumstances prevailing and which were likely to prevail in the Police Commissionarates, mentioned in the order dtd. 24/6/2022, necessitated the State Government to exercise its delegation of power under Sec. 3(2) of the MPDA Act. He also submits that this order, which has been impugned herein, is unjust and it does not satisfy the test of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness as laid down in the case of A. K. Kraipak Vs. Union of India [1969 (2) SCC 262] (paragraph no. 20).

6. Shri S. S. Doifode, learned APP submits that it is well settled law that it is not necessary for an Administrative Authority, exercising its power of delegation regarding conferring of power upon Subordinate Authority, to mention in the order any particular or some specific material, on the basis of which subjective satisfaction for exercise of power of delegation has been reached by an Administrative Authority. He further submits that material already exists in the present case and therefore, it cannot be said that the power of delegation exercised by the State Government contravenes any of the settled principle of law and fails the test as laid down in the case of A. K. Kraipak (supra).

7. Upon careful consideration of the impugned delegation order, we find no substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and find merit in the argument canvassed by learned APP on behalf of the State, on this point.

8. The impugned order of delegation of power, as we see, records satisfaction about existence of the circumstances which impelled the State Government to exercise its power of delegation under Sec. 3(2) of the MPID Act. In order that an administrative order clears the test of non-arbitrariness and reasonableness, as laid down in the case of A. K. Kraipak (supra), it must be based upon objective material, which would enable the Administrative Authority to reach its subjective satisfaction for exercising or not exercising the administrative power conferred upon it. In the present case, the power exercised under Sec. 3(2) of the MPDA Act is undoubtedly an administrative power and therefore, its validity is required to be seen in the light of the material considered by the Administrative Authority led to reaching of its subjective satisfaction. In the present case, the satisfaction subjectively