The judgment established the importance of the impact on public order and the requirement for the detaining authority to provide a reasonable explanation for any delay in issuing the detention order.

JUDGMENT

Prakash D. Naik, J. -  The Petitioner is the mother of detenu Sahil Hanif Patel, who has been detained under the Provisions of 'Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlord, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and persons engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981' (hereinafter referred to M.P.D.A. Act) vide Order dated 22nd April 2022. The Petitioner has challenged the said Order of detention by preferring this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The detenu was served with detention Order, committal Order, grounds of detention and the documents relied upon by detaining Authority while issuing the Order of detention.

2. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that, C.R. No. 247 of 2021 and C.R. No. 293 of 2021 were individualistic in nature having no connection with public at large and the said incidents does not affect the public Order. Witness A and witness B has referred to stale incidents occurred in the first week of December 2021 and second week of December 2021. The incidents referred by witnesses are not proximate. The statements are not genuine. The impugned Order of detention was issued on 22nd April 2022 after a period of four months from the last incident. The affidavit-in-reply filed by the detaining Authority does not explain the delay in issuing Order of detention. Except transferring the file from one table to another, the Authority did not take effective steps for issuing Order of detention. Time gap spent in moving the file from one Authority to another Authority has not been explained. The delay in issuing detention Order has snapped the live link between activities and need for preventive detention. The detaining Authority has relied upon extraneous material to arrive at subjective satisfaction in as much as documents pertaining to past offences of detenu were placed before detaining Authority which has influenced his subjective satisfaction while issuing Order of detention.

3. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has relied upon following decisions:-

(i) Pushkar Mukherjee Vs. The State of West Bengal. 1969 SCR (2) 635

(ii) Anil Tukaram Mohite Vs. The Commissioner of Police Pimpri Chinchwad and Ors. 2021ALLMR(Cri)3794

(iii) Pawan Tukaram Kudale Vs. The Comissioner of Police 2019ALLMR(Cri)503

(iv) Pradeep Nikanth Paturkar Vs. S. Ramamurthi and Ors. AIR1994SC656

(v) Shamim Makmood Khan Vs. K. Venkateshan and Ors. MANU/MH/0284/2020

(vi) Santosh Uttam Gaikwad Vs. District Magistrate, Beed and Ors. MANU/MH/0004/2022

(vii) Rashid Shaukat Husain Sayyed Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. MANU/MH/1286/2018

(viii) Sanjeev Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Solapur and Ors. MANU/MH/2888/2021

(xi) Rahul Vs. The State of Maharashtra MANU/MH/1120/2014.

4. Learned APP has submitted that, the incidents referred to by the detaining Authority affect even tempo of society and causing disturbance to public Order. After proposal was submitted immediate steps were taken for issuing Order of detention which has been elaborately explained in the affidavit-in-reply. The past incidents were not subject matter of detention which is evident from the averment in the grounds of detention. Prompt action was initiated against the detenu. Section 5-A of the Act stipulate that, even if, one ground on the basis of which the detention Order is found non-existent or irrelevant, the detention Order would survive on the other grounds of detention.

5. From the contents of grounds of detention, it is apparent that, the detaining Authority in paragraph No.5 has categorically stated that, the offences considered for passing detention Order are mentioned therein. It is evident that C.R. No.247 of 2021 and C.R. No.293 of 2021 were registered with Dattawadi Police Station against the detenu on 1st November 2021 and 18th December 2021. The detenu was arrested on 9th November 2021. C.R. No.247 of 2021 was registered for offences under Sections 452, 323, 504, 5