Preventive detention orders must be based on sufficient material demonstrating a threat to public order, and arbitrary or capricious exercise of power renders such orders illegal.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.

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

2. By invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order of detention, dated 19/03/2024, passed by section officer to Government of Maharashtra, Home department in MPDA-0224/CR-84/SPL-3B and order dated 01/02/2024 in no.2014/RB-1/DESK-2/T-4/MPDA/CR-08 passed by District Magistrate.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken us through the impugned orders and the material which was supplied to the petitioner by the detaining authority after passing of the order. Learned advocate submits that the offences referred in the grounds of detention are pending the investigation and the action 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 (hereinafter referred to as the “MPDA Act”) is not justifiable. Learned advocate further submits that respondent nos.1 and 2 have erroneously interpreted the provisions of MPDA Act while passing the detention order without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The two in camera statements, which are recorded by the detaining authority are not helpful to arrive at the subjective satisfaction. There is delay caused for taking action against the petitioner. He further submits that the alleged offences do not constitute that the petitioner is a habitual offender and based on the said the action taken against the petitioner is a drastic one. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that detention order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as it causes injustice to the petitioner.

4. The learned APP for the respondents submits that the petitioner is a dangerous person as defined under the provisions of MPDA Act. The detaining authority has relied on two in-camera statements and the subjective satisfaction has been arrived at. There is no error committed by the detaining authority while recording the in-camera statements of the witnesses. Due to the grave terror created by the petitioner, the people in surrounding area are not coming forward to lodge report against the petitioner and, therefore, it affects the public order. There is absolutely no delay in passing the order and the impugned order came to be passed immediately upon receipt of the proposal. The petitioner is involved in serious crimes against the body and property and, therefore, he has been put in the category of dangerous person as per the MPDA Act. The activities of the petitioner could not have been stopped except upon his detention. There is no error committed by the detaining authority while passing the impugned order. The learned A.P.P. therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Considered the submissions advanced by learned advocates for both the sides. Perused the order of detention. Before considering the case on merits, it would be proper to take into consideration the judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases:-

(i) Nenavath Bujji Vs. State of Telangana and others, [2024 SCC OnLine SC 367], in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that preventive detention being a draconian measure, any order of detention as a result of a capricious or routine exercise of powers must be nipped in the bud and must be struck down at the first available threshold.

(ii) Ameena Begum Vs. The State of Tamilnadu and Ors., [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743]; in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that discretion must be exercised in accordance with the statute. However, if statute is silent, the authority cannot act whimsically or arbitrarily. It should be guided by reasonableness and fairness.

(iii) Kanu Biswas Vs. State of West Bengal, [1972 (3) SCC 831] wherein reference was made to the dec