Detention orders under the MPDA Act require proof of public order disruption, and delays in processing such orders can invalidate them due to lack of subjective satisfaction.

JUDGMENT :

VRUSHALI V. JOSHI , J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 11.01.2024 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (the MPDA Act, 1981), which was confirmed by the respondent No.1 for a period of one year.

3. A proposal was sent to the detaining authority through the Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal and Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sub- Division, Yavatmal, co-jointly on 19.12.2023. The petitioner is alleged of indulging into certain criminal activities since the year 2018 to 2023 which comprises of creating terror by possessing a dangerous weapon, threatening to kill, verbal abuse, extortion, inculcating the habit of alcohol consumption among young within the community.

4. Shri Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detention order passed by the Collector/District Magistrate, Yavatmal, was without personally seeing and verifying the truthfulness of the in-camera statements. He submitted that, the in-camera statements do not give the details of the date of incidence. The learned Counsel submitted that in Crime No. 1259/2023, the order granting the bail has not been placed before the detaining authority but only the bail application. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the contention that old and stale offences have been taken into account which have no bearing on the live link to pass the impugned order. He further submitted that the subjective satisfaction is vitiated as the statements are related to individual incidents and in no manner disturbs the public order.

5. Learned A.P.P, Smt. Jachak, vehemently opposed the submissions of the petitioner and relied upon the affidavit-in-reply. Learned A.P.P submitted that, respondent No.2 has seen and perused the statements of in- camera witnesses and verified the statements on 05.01.2024 before passing the detention order from Police Inspector, Police Station, Awdhutwadi, Yavatmal and Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Umarkhed who have personally verified these statements. She further submitted that as per the documents provided by the Police Authority along with the proposal of detention of the petitioner, in Crime No.1259/2023, it contained injury certificate which is provided to the detenue. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the copy of the bail order in Crime No.1259/2023 is not supplied by the Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal, however, the bail application along with the proposal and the detention order with grounds have been put-forth before the detaining authority. She further submitted that date of incident and location of the incidents are not disclosed in order to keep the identity of the witnesses confidential as per Article 22 (6) of the Constitution. Therefore, there is no substance in the grounds raised by the petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Heard both learned Counsel for the parties.

7. The challenge to the detention order is on the ground of public order and delay in passing the detention order. The provisions of Act are intended to deal with habitual criminals, dangerous and desperate outlaws who are so hardened and incorrigible that the o