JUDGMENT :

(Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)

1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Jayshri Tripathi holding for learned Advocate Mr. Rupesh A. Jaiswal for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. N. R. Dayama 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 order dated 31.10.2024 bearing No.2024/MAG/MPDA/Desk-2/Kavi-463 passed by respondent No.1 as well as the approval order dated 08.11.2024 and the confirmation order dated 18.12.2024 passed by respondent No.2, 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. She 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.324 of 2024 registered with Aurad Shahajani Police Station, District Latur for the offences punishable under Sections 132, 303(2), 352, 351(2) (3)(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya S