The court emphasized the need for verified and specific evidence to justify preventive detention and the exhaustion of ordinary law remedies before resorting to preventive detention.

JUDGMENT

SARANG V.KOTWAL,J. - The Petitioner is challenging the detention order No.2022 DC-1/KAVI-04/2022/01 dtd. 7/1/2022 issued by Respondent No.2 the District Magistrate, Hingoli and which is confirmed by the State of Maharashtra.

2. Heard Mr. V. R. Dhorde, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M. M. Nerlikar, learned APP for the Respondents.

3. The detention order was issued under Sec. 3 Sub-Sec. 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 (hereinafter referred to as MPDA). The detention order was issued on 7/1/2022 and on the same day the Petitioenr was detained. On that day itself the grounds on which the detntion order was passed were supplied to the Petitioner.

4. On 14/1/2022, he made a representation to the State Government. It was rejected on 21/1/2022. On 18/1/2022, the Petitioner was informed that the State Government had approved the detention order passed by Respondent No.2 i.e. the District Magistrate, Hingoli. On 25/1/2022, the Petitioner was informed that his case was referred to Advisory Board and after its Report the detention order was confirmed on 4/3/2022 under Sec. 12 of the MPDA.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation of the registered offences; were not supplied to the Petitioner. In-camera statements which are referred to in the grounds of detention are vague and general. Lack of basic particulars in those in-camera statements had deprived him of making an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The period mentioned in the in-camera statements is of the year 2020 and those statements were recorded in November 2021 and, therefore, those incidents are stale and irrelevant for the purpose of detention. The verification of these in-camera statements is not properly recorded and there is no contemporaneous record to show that the verifying officer and the detaining authority himself were satisfied about truthfulness about the occurrence of those incidents and about the fear expressed by the witnesses.

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is nothing on record to even suggest that the ordinary law of the land was ineffective and, therefore, resorting to this extraordinary measure of issuing detention order was not necessary at all.

7. Learned APP opposed this Petition with reference to the affidavit-in-reply filed by Respondent No.2 i.e the District Magistrate, Hingoli. The affidavit-in-reply basically reproduces the grounds of the detention order. It is mentioned in Paragraph No.14 of the affidavitin-reply that the statements recorded during investigation are not relevant for passing the order of detention. Therefore, non supplying of such documents has not affected the Petitioner's right to make the representation. As far as the last registered offence was concerned, the CA Report was awaited when the detention order was passed. However, the Government Medical Officer's opinion was considered by the detaining authority.

8. Learned APP submitted that registration of an offence is not necessary in the cases of bootleggers who are required to be detained because of their activities. It is their activities in general and live link in those activities that requires passing of detention orders and, therefore, if they are not arrested in any particular offence, it does not affect the power of the detaining authority to pass the detention order. He submitted that there is record to show that the in-camera statements were verified by a subordinate officer to the detaining authority. It was relied on by the detaining authority. According to the learned APP, the Petitioner was asked to execute a bond under Sec. 93 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and in spite of that, he had breached the bond. This sh