The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proper verification of In-camera statements of witnesses and the communication of such verification to the Detenu to enable him to raise any representation against the grounds, as per the judgments in Sourabh s/o. Sahebrao Rathod and Smt. Bismilah wd/o Sheikh Rahim.

JUDGMENT

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

2. This is a petition which takes exception to the order bearing D.O.NO.CB/DET/MPDA/AMT/01/2022 dtd. 8/6/2022, passed by the Respondent No.2- Commissioner of Police, Amravati, ordering detention of the Detenu-Umesh @ Bunty s/o Ashok Pawar under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 ("MPDA Act"), and also the order bearing No. MPDA-0622/CR.188/Spl-3B dtd. 21/7/2022, passed by the Respondent No.1 i.e. Home Department (Special), confirming the Detenu's order of detention.

3. The main grounds for challenge, amongst various others, raised in the petition are ;

a) That the impugned orders are not based on the correct record, in that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Respondent No.2, whilst passing an order dtd. 8/6/2022 on the basis of order of externment bearing No.DCP/Zone-1/Externment/514/2018 dtd. 27/3/2018, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Amravati City, was without consideration of this Court's order dtd. 13/2/2019, passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.1092 of 2018, whereby the aforesaid order of externment was quashed and set aside; the impugned detention order was passed, without the order of this Court dtd. 13/2/2019, being placed before the Detaining Authority or the Authority considering the same;

b) That none of the incidents which formed the basis for passing of the detention order and recording the Authority's subjective satisfaction, can be considered as activities of the Detenu, that would amount to acts causing breach of "public order", but are at the most acts in breach of "law and order"; consequently, there would be no jurisdiction vested in the Authority under Sec. 3 of the MPDA Act, to pass the impugned order;

c) That In-camera statements of two witnesses relied upon by the Authority to record its subjective satisfaction, were devoid of all elements, which would amount to a breach of public order; that there is nothing on record to establish that the Detaining Authority has conducted verification of the contents of the In-camera statements of two witnesses, more so verified the unwillingness of the witnesses to come forward and deposed in the matter, and since there is no communication of the material, which constituted such act of verification, to the Detenu, there is also a breach of the provisions of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. We have not adverted to any of the other grounds urged in this petition in this judgment, as we are of the opinion that on the basis of the aforementioned three grounds alone, the relief sought in this petition could be allowed.

4. We have heard Shri P. V. Navlani, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Shri S. S. Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondents and with their able assistance, we have perused the record. The Respondents have opposed the petition by filing an affidavit-in-reply dtd. 28/11/2022 through the Respondent No.2. In that affidavit, it is only contended that the file contains endorsements that statements of the two In-camera witnesses were verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police by interacting with the witnesses and visiting the spot and by verifying the truthfulness of the statements by discussing the same with the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Police. The Respondents support the impugned orders.

5. Shri P. V. Navlani, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would elaborate on the aforementioned three grounds by arguing that the impugned orders start by making reference to various alleged offences committed by the Detenu commencing from the year 2010 to the year 2021, all of which criminal cases are pending before the concerned Magistrates. He further contends that the reference was also made to previous seven crimes