JUDGMENT :

Shailesh P. Brahme, J.

Rule.

2. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. Heard the learned Counsel for the litigating sides finally.

3. The petitioner has questioned an order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the respondent no.2 detaining the petitioner by branding him as a ‘bootlegger’ under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the MPDA Act for the sake of brevity and convenience). The impugned order is approved by the respondent no.1 under Section 3(3) of the MPDA Act, on 17.10.2023.

4. The action under the provisions of the Act was taken against the petitioner on the basis of the offences registered against her, the preventive actions under Section 93 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and the two statements of the anonymous witnesses recorded against her. The details of the offences registered against the petitioner is recorded in paragraph no.4 of the impugned grounds of detention. The gist of the depositions of the witnesses is recorded in paragraph no.4.5 of the order of detention.

5. Considering the activit