Detention orders must be based on sufficient material demonstrating a disturbance to public order; otherwise, they cannot be sustained.

JUDGMENT :

(Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. V. S. Valse for the petitioner and learned APP Mrs. P. R. Bharaswadkar for the respondents –State.

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

3. The petitioner challenges the detention order dated 21.11.2024 bearing No.2024/MAG/MPDA/Desk-2/WS-480 passed by respondent No.2 as well as the approval order dated 29.11.2024 and the confirmation order dated 10.01.2025 passed by respondent No.1, by invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. 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. He submits that though several offences were registered against the petitioner, yet for the purpose of passing the impugned order, only one offence was considered i.e. Crime No.357 of 2024 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, District Latur for the offences punishable under Sections 309(6), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order would show that the material that was placed before the detaining authority was not sufficient to arrive at subjective satisfaction. The petitioner is involved inseven criminal cases, however, for passing detention order, the last offence has been considered i.e. Crime No.357 of 2024 registered with Shivajinagar Police Station, District Latur on 01.09.2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 309(6), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. The facts of the case would show that the incident had taken place inside the shop of the informant and, therefore, question of public order was not involved. At the most, law and order situation would have been created, for which the applicant was arrested and later on, he has been released on bail. The bail order has not been considered at all while passing detention order. No such step of cancelling the bail has been taken before taking the extreme act of detention. The in-camera statements of witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ would also show that at the most law and order situation would have been created and not the public order. The impugned order is not based on various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, deserves to be set aside.

5. Per contra, the learned APP strongly supports the action taken against the petitioner. She submits that the petitioner is a dangerous person as defined under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the “MPDA Act”). The detaining authority has relied on the two in-camera statements and the subjective satisfaction has been arrived at. There is no illegality in the procedure adopted while recording the in-camera statements of the witnesses. Due to the terror created by the petitioner, people are not coming forward to lodge report against him and, therefore, it affects the public order. Learned APP relies on the affidavit-in- reply of Ms. Varsha Thakur – Ghuge, District Magistrate, Latur wherein she has tried to give all those facts which were before her for arriving at the subjective satisfaction. The confidential statements were recorded on 28.10.2024 and 26.10.2024 respectively. Then the proposal was forwarded to Sub Divisional Police Officer on 30.10.2024. Thereafter, they were verified by Sub Divisional Police Officer on 04.11.2024 and the said proposal was then forwarded to Superintendent of Police. Superintendent of Police forwarded the same to District Magistrate on 07.11.2024 and the detention order has been passed on 21.11.2024. Therefore, there is no delay or the procedural lacuna. The contents of the FIR vide Crime No.357 of 2024 would show that the lady aged 42 years runs a provision store. She was along with h