The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible material to justify detention under the MPDA Act, and the emphasis on the adverse effects of bootlegging activities on public order and health.

JUDGMENT :

M.W. Chandwani, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The petition challenges the order of detention dated 26/04/2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Wardha – respondent No.2 under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 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 (hereafter referred to as “MPDA Act” for short). The petitioner further lays challenge to the order dated 20/06/2023 passed by respondent No.1 under Section under Section 3 of the MPDA Act confirming the order dated 26/04/2023 of respondent No.2.

3. The background facts leading to this petition can be summarized as under :

A proposal was initiated for detention by invoking the provisions contained in Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner was a habitual bootlegger. The petitioner habitually indulged in manufacturing, stocking, transporting and selling of illicit liquor in contravention of the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1949” for short), within the jurisdiction of Police Station Pulgaon and other adjoining area of Wardha District, which is declared as liquor prohibited district by the Government of Maharashtra. From the year 2020, as many as 27 cases were registered under the provisions of the Act of 1949 from 2020 till 2023. Investigation in these cases revealed that the petitioner had illegally supplied and distributed the illicit liquor, which came to be seized from the petitioner in those crimes. In last six months, near about 12 cases have been registered against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act of 1949. But, the petitioner is continuously indulged in the acts in contravention of the provisions of the Act of 1949. The people, who drunk the liquor at den of the petitioner, teases women, girls and create uproar within the locality and also causes nuisance. Thus, the Detaining Authority felt to detain the petitioner preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and passed the impugned order dated 26/04/2023, which is under challenge by taking multiple grounds including non-application of mind, absence of material to indicate that bootlegging activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as well as non-consideration of bail order.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents/State. We have also perused the original record made available to us by the learned A.P.P.

5. Mr. Amol Jaltare, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the detention order mainly on the ground that in both in-camera statements, nowhere it is stated that the petitioner himself is involved in disturbing the tranquility of the society. He would submit that there are no allegations that the petitioner is involved in the violent activities. The only allegation is made in-camera statements “A” and “B” that merely because some drunken people are causing nuisance in the vicinity of the locality of the witnesses. These statements do not show that there was disturbance of public order. There is difference between disturbance of public health and disturbance of public order and both are not synonymous with each other. None of the statements refer any series of questionable acts of the petitioner. Crime No.962/2022 is registered almost six months prior to passing of the order of detention. Therefore, there is no live link. The petitioner was never arrested. Though in Chemical Analyzer’s report, percentage of ethyl alcohol was found, the said report does not express that how much quantity of ethyl alcohol is dangerous for human consumption. Thus, the grounds, which have been relied by the Detaining Au