Preventive detention requires objective satisfaction by authorities based on relevant material demonstrating a clear threat to public order; mere past conduct without a live link to present behavior is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

(Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)

Heard learned Advocate Mr.Jadhav for the petitioner and learned APP Mr.Doifode for the respondents.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.

3. The petition challenges the detention order passed by respondent No.2 against him bearing No.ADM/Home/Desk14(1) MPDA/WS 59/24, dated 05/02/2024 and its approval dated 14/02/2024 passed by respondent No.1 by invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The learned Advocate of the petitioner has taken us through the impugned orders and the material, which was before the Authorities at the time of passing the impugned orders. He submits that though several cases were registered against the petitioner, but most of them are pending before the concerned Court and one is under investigation. The petitioner is an active politician of opposition party and therefore, the impugned orders have been passed. The order passed by respondent No.2 shows that he had considered Crime No.506 of 2023 under section 379 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE read with section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, registered on 10/12/2023, which is still under investigation. For considering the detention order to be passed at that time, the alleged past history has also been considered and the confidential in-camera statements of witnesses A and B. But, the entire record would show that the alleged activity of the petitioner was not amounting to disturbing the public peace or would have amounted to law and order situation. He further points out that the statement of witness A alleged to have been recorded on 13/01/2024 by Police Sub-Inspector, Khapa Police Station and the verification is alleged to have been done on 22/01/2024 by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Saoner. It is only made as seen by the Detaining Authority, who is the Superintendent of Police, Nagpur (Gramin), Nagpur. The statement of witness B has been recorded on 15/01/2024 by the same PSI, verified by same Deputy Superintendent of Police, Saoner on 22/01/2024 and seen by the Superintendent of Police, Nagpur (Rural), Nagpur. The detention order is passed on 05/02/2024. The delay is unexplained. There was no subjective satisfaction that has been recorded by the Detaining Authority while passing the said orders. The confirmation of such order ought not to have been done by the State. As the orders are illegal, they deserve to be set aside.

5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner relies upon the decision in Amol Alias Guddu s/o Sevakar Khorgade v. The Commissioner of Police , Nagpur and others, decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 14/03/2023, wherein after taking a note of various decisions of this Court, it was held that subjective satisfaction was one of the considerations while passing the detention order. The past history cannot be of the indefinite period. In this case also the petitioner was posed as a sand smuggler and then it has been stated by this Court that the detention order would show that the petitioner is the sand smuggler and not a dangerous person as defined under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act , 1981 (for short ‘MPD Act’). He further relies on the decision in Nevanath Bujji etc. v. State of Telangana and others , decided by Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supre