Detention orders require strict compliance with legal standards, including a clear subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority, which was not met in this case.

JUDGMENT :

(Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. U. B. Bilolikar for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. A. D. Wange 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 15.07.2024 bearing No. 2024/RB-1/Desk-2/T-4/MPDA/CR-47 passed by respondent No.2 as well as the approval order dated 25.07.2024 and the confirmation order dated 30.08.2024 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, four offences were considered i.e. (i) Crime No.13 of 2024 registered with Inspector, State Excise, Biloli Division, Nanded, (ii) Crime No.66 of 2024 registered with Inspector, State Excise, Flying Squad, Nanded, (iii) Crime No.52 of 2024 registered with Inspector, State Excise, Biloli Division, Nanded and (iv) Crime No.155 of 2024 registered with Inspector, State Excise, Flying Squad, Nanded. All these offences were registered under Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that there was no subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority. The detaining authority has not considered the expert’s opinion and only relied on the CA reports for arriving at a conclusion that the substance that was seized was dangerous to the health of the public at large. In all the cases, the petitioner has been served with notice under Section 41(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, Chapter Case No.16 of 2022 was proposed against the petitioner, however, in view of action taken under M.P.D.A., said chapter case was dropped. The statements of in-camera witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ would show that at the most law and order situation would have been created. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and cannot be allowed to sustain.

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 is relying upon the affidavit- in-reply filed by Mr. Abhijit Raut, District Magistrate, Nanded. He supports the detention order passed by him and tries to demonstrate as to how he had arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner is a bootlegger. The subjective satisfaction was arrived at on the basis of CA report as well as in-camera statements and the contents of the FIR. In all, four offences were considered along with the two in-camera statements. After the subjective satisfaction, the detaining authority has passed a reasoned order, which is then confirmed with the opinion of the Advisory Board and, thereafter, confirmed by the State Government on 30.08.2024.

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 State of Tamilnadu and Ors., [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743];

(iii) Kanu Biswas Vs. State of West Bengal, [1972 (3) SCC 831] w