The detention order must be based on material that constitutes a breach of public order, and the authority must record its subjective satisfaction on the basis of consideration of material before it.

JUDGMENT

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

2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dtd. 31/03/2022 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City under Sec. 3 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 Act"), of preventive detention of the petitioner, since 31/03/2022. The petitioner further impugns order dtd. 05/05/2022 passed by the Home Department of the Government of Maharashtra, confirming the detention of the petitioner under order dtd. 31/03/2022.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the order of detention dtd. 31/03/2022 is essentially based upon two offences alleged against him the first being Crime No.662/2021 alleged to have been committed by the petitioner at Hudkeshwar on 04/10/2021 for the offences punishable under Ss. 252, 294, 506, 323 r/w Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (Hereinafter referred to as "the first offence") and the second offence, which is alleged to have been taken place at Sakkardara in Crime No.530/2021 on 05/10/2021 for the offences punishable under Ss. 386, 143, 147, 149 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (Hereinafter referred to as "the second offence"). It is contended by the petitioner that on the first offence, Criminal Case No.1056/2022 was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Nagpur on 02/03/2022, wherein the petitioner was enlarged on bail by the order of Magistrate dtd. 11/10/2021. On the second offence, Criminal Case No.367/2022 was filed against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur on 08/01/2022, wherein the petitioner was enlarged on bail by order dtd. 07/10/2021 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (M.V. Court) Nagpur. According to the record of the Detaining Authority, both these cases were pending before the concerned Magistrate as on the date of passing of the impugned order.

4. That the record before the Detaining Authority further also discloses that the authority relied upon the statements of two witnesses, which were recorded in camera by the authority, in order to protect their identity, for the purpose of passing the impugned order. It is the contention of the petitioner that though both the orders of granting bail to the petitioner formed part of the record before the Detaining Authority, there is total nonconsideration of the reasons contained in the bail orders for enlarging the petitioner on bail. It is further submitted that the complete non-consideration by the Detaining Authority of the reasoning given by the Magistrates in both these bail orders, would imply that there was no application of mind, while passing the impugned order, nor was there subjective satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority on the basis of the actual material placed before it.

5. It is further submitted by the petitioner, as can be seen from the grounds urged in the petition, that the two in camera statements recorded by the Detaining Authority were both stale instances of alleged offence against the petitioner and they could not be relied upon since consideration of such stale allegations would not give the Detaining Authority a live cause for proceeding against the petitioner under the MPDA Act. A further ground is urged in the petition that apart from the fact that none of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, took place at a public place, as is required by the provisions of the MPDA Act, and as such the incidents could not have been considered by the Detaining Authority as forming the ground for the action contemplated. It was the further ground raised in the petition that neither the first offence nor the second offence referred to