Detention orders must be based on verified evidence and proper consideration of a petitioner's rights, failing which they are deemed illegal.

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 Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 48 (7), 48(8) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the detaining authority has considered the offence vide Crime No.324 of 2024 and twostatements of in-camera witnesses. If we consider the statements of witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’, it would show that no incident had taken place against them, but only on the basis of whatever information they had, they say that the activities of the petitioner are detrimental to public. Such statements ought not to have been allowed for consideration. Further, the detention order has been passed on 31.10.2024 and copies of only few documents have been supplied on 01.11.2024 to the petitioner. The copy of the in-camera statements supplied to the petitioner do not show that the detaining authority had verified those statements. In respect of the offence, though the presence of the petitioner has been shown at the spot, yet at the time of passing detention order the detaining authority ought to have considered as to whether the petitioner was released on bail by the competent Court or not. The representations by the petitioner have been belatedly decided thereby the orders have been passed in violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioner. Therefore, the material which was before the detaining authority was not sufficient to arrive at a subjective satisfaction. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and cannot be allowed to be sustained.

5. Per contra, the learned APP strongly supports the action taken against the petitioner. He 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, which states about as to how she had arrived at the subjective satisfaction. Though in the past, preventive action was taken against the present petitioner, it appears to have been futile as he continued to commit theft of the sand and caused damage to the environment and the government property.

6. Before considering the case, we would like to take note of the legal position as is emerging in the following decisions :-

(i) Nenavath Bujji etc. Vs. State of Telangana and others, [2024 SCC OnLine SC 367],

(ii) Ameena Begum Vs. The