The judgment establishes the importance of a clear nexus between alleged activities and disturbance of public order to justify preventive detention under the MPD Act, emphasizing the need for subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority and the requirement for supporting evidence.

JUDGMENT

Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J. - Heard learned counsel Shri U.J.Deshpande for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri S.S.Doifode for respondents/State. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. On 8.4.2022, Police Inspector of Akot City Police Station submitted a proposal to respondent No.2 - the Collector and District Magistrate, Akola, contending that the petitioner/detenu is a dangerous person for the society. It is alleged that the detenu along with his associates was roaming around the area within the jurisdiction of Akot Police Station and habitually committed serious offences like assaults, extortions, robberies, lands/property grabbing armed with deadly weapon like knife. It is further alleged that the activities of the petitioner/detenu caused alarm and insecurity amonst the general public and, therefore, preventive proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also initiated against the petitioner/detenu. It is alleged that as the law of the land is found to be insufficient and ineffective to deter the petitioner/detenu from indulging in criminal activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order, preventive proceedings 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 ('the MPD Act') were taken after recording two in-camera statements of witnesses. The Authority stated that the petitioner/ detenu is a bootlegger and his acts caused danger to the society.

3. After receiving the proposal along with necessary documents, and after considering the same, on 13.4.2022 respondent No.2 passed order of detention under Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the MPD Act and the petitioner/detenu was detained. Respondent No.2 assigned various grounds of detention mentioning that though a prevention action was taken against the petitioner/detenu, his activities are continue, and, therefore, his detention is required in view of the provisions of the said Act. The order of detention was sent to respondent No.1 for its approval.

4. After receiving the order of detention by respondent No.2 for approval, respondent No.1 was pleased to approve and confirm the same after considering opinion and report given by the Advisory Board and further directed to detain the petitioner/detenu for a period of twelve months from the date of detention.

5. Facts of the case in a nutshell are as under:

The petitioner/detenu was arrested and detained on 13.4.2022 as per the order passed by respondent No.2. The order of detention was passed on the basis that five offences are registered against the petitioner/detenu and the investigating agency came to conclusion that the petitioner/detenu is a dangerous person and his activities are prejudicial to the society. He is habitual bootlegger and dreaded criminal striking terror in the mind of peace loving and law abiding citizens residing in the localities of Akot City Police Station and adjoining areas by the criminal activities of the petitioner/detenu. It is further recorded that the action taken against the petitioner/detenu under the regular law is found to be insufficient and ineffective to deter him from indulging in criminal activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The public is under constant shadow of the petitioner/detenu and his associates' fear. It is further recorded that respondent No.2 is subjectively satisfied that the petitioner/detenu is a bootlegger. The petitioner/detenu is a dreaded criminal and detention order has been passed. The said detention order is under challenge before this Court in this writ petition.

6. The petitioner/detenu enumerated various grounds, but the main ground of the petitioner/detenu is that respondent No.2 without verifying the statements only endorsed as 'seen' on in-camera statements. Without subjective satisfaction, the