The distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' is crucial in determining the impact of incidents on public order and the validity of detention under the M.P.D.A. Act.

JUDGMENT

Prakash D. Naik, J. - The Petitioner has challenged the Order of Detention dated 12th July 2022 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Solapur under 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 (for short, 'M.P.D.A. Act'). The impugned Order has been issued with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public Order.

2. Along with the Order of Detention, Petitioner was served upon the Grounds of Detention dated 12th July 2022 and the documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority while issuing the Order of Detention. From the Grounds of Detention it is apparent that, the Detention is based on C.R. No.231 of 2022 registered with Faujdar Chawadi Police Station, Solapur, for offences punishable under Sections 332, 353, 143, 147, 149, 504 & 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') read with Section 142 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and statements of two witnesses recorded in-camera and described as witness 'A' and witness 'B'.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Sarda, appearing for Petitioner urged two grounds to challenge the impugned Order of Detention. The first ground advanced by learned Advocate for Petitioner is that, neither C.R.No.231 of 2022 registered with Faujdar Chawadi Police Station, Solapur, nor the statements of two witnesses affect the maintenance of public Order. The incidents would at the most disturb the law and Order situation. The First Information Report (for short 'FIR') and other material on record would show that, the Petitioner was not armed with any weapon. Although it is alleged that, Complainant was assaulted and he went to Civil Hospital for treatment, his injury certificate is not on record. The Petitioner was not armed with any weapon. The statement of witness 'A' was recorded on 2nd June 2022. He has referred to the alleged incident of first week of April, 2022. Whereas, statement of witness 'B' was recorded on 4th June 2022 and he has referred to the alleged incident of second week of April, 2022. The statements are false. There is no proper verification of statements. In the FIR relating to C.R.No.231 of 2022 it is alleged that, the Petitioner had allegedly entered the jurisdiction of Faujdar Chawadi Police Station, Solapur, on 17th April 2022 in breach of externment Order. It is difficult to believe that, the Petitioner had entered the area referred by two witnesses in first week of April, 2022 and second week of April 2022. The version of witness 'A' and 'B' do not inspire confidence.

4. Learned Advocate for Petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Banka Sneha Sheela Vs. State of Telangana and Others reported in (2021) 9 SCC 415 and the the decision of this Court in the case of Lakhan Rohidas Jagtap Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Pune & Others, reported in 2019 ALL MR (Cri) 5261.

5. The second ground advanced by learned Advocate for Petitioner is that, the Detaining Authority has considered the proposal sent by sponsoring authority and thereby passed the Detention Order against the detenu. The said proposal has not been supplied to the detenu, which has affected the right of detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In the Grounds of Detention it is stated that, the Detaining Authority have gone through the proposal and other documents and satisfied about the truthfulness of incident and fear expressed by the witnesses of in-camera statements. Hence, it was incumbent upon the Detaining Authority to supply a copy of proposal to the detenu.

6. Learned A.P.P. submitted that, incident referred to in C.R.No.231 of 2022 registered with Faujdar Chawadi Police Station, Solapur and the statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' affect the maintenance of public order. It cannot be said that, statements of witnesses recorded in-camera ar