The detention order under Sec. 3(2) of the Act was justified based on the serious nature of the detenu's acts, causing fear and terror in public places, constituting a breach of public order.

JUDGMENT

VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of both the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is a writ petition invoking our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning detention order dtd. 14/2/2022, passed by the respondent No.2, under Sec. 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981, (for short "the Act"), whereby the petitioner No.1, has been ordered to be detained for a period of 12 months under the said Act. The order dtd. 14/2/2022 has received approval and been confirmed by the Government of Maharashtra, respondent No.1 herein by order dtd. 22/3/2022 which has also been impugned herein by the petitioner.

3. The main grounds raised in the petition are as under:

(a) That there is no subjective satisfaction of the Sub- Divisional Police Officer of the in-camera statements recorded by the Sponsoring Authority or of the Detaining Authority as to the truthfulness of the statements ;

b) That the Detaining Authority has not properly recorded its subjective satisfaction as to the reasons and the material on the basis of which, it concluded that the detention of the petitioner was required on account of his act, being prejudicial to maintenance of public order.

c) That the impugned order is contrary to the provision Sec. 3(2) of the Act, since in the first instance, the detention order by the State Government was beyond a period of three months.

d) That since the six crimes which were taken into consideration against the Petitioner were all matters in which, Petitioner was set free on bail, the Petitioner cannot be considered to be a threat to public order since he would have been arrested immediately for a breach of the conditions of bail in any of those crimes, instead of using powers under Sec. 3 of the Act.

4. In reply to the petition, the respondent No.4, had filed an affidavit, inter alia, recording therein that the truthfulness of the statements of the in-camera witness "A", and the statement of in-camera witness "B" was verified by the concerned Sub-Divisional Police Officer and found true, after visited the spot of the offence on 9/2/2022 ; the affidavit further avers that the Detaining Authority has seen the statements and verified the same through the concerned Officer and only thereafter, has recorded its subjective satisfaction for passing of the impugned order.

The affidavit further states that even if the detention order does not specify the period of detention, the entire order would not be vitiated by lack of specifying the period as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Devaki Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. reported in 1990 (2) SCC 456. The affidavit further avers that the proposal for detention was placed before the Advisory Board constituted under the Act and after giving the petitioners herein, an opportunity of being heard, the Advisory Board consisting of High Court Judges, considered the petitioners' contentions and recommended continuation of the detention, to the State Government.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned APP for respondents and perused the record.

6. Mr A. B. Mirza, learned counsel for petitioners submits that the Authority has relied upon six crimes alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, which have been enumerated in a chart contained in the order, in addition to which, there is one instance of preventive action against the petitioner. From the record, it appears that four out of six crimes relied upon by the Authority are pending investigation whilst in two, i.e. Crime No.976 of 2021 and 902 of 2021, a charge-sheet has been filed and the matter is pending before a Competent Magistrate for trial. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been released on