JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) :

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally withthe consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties.

2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in order to challenge the order of preventive detention dated 05.02.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Beed under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders/ Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 ( Hereinafter referred to as “MPDA” for the purpose of brevity) and the subsequent order dated 07.11.2024 passed by Respondent No.1 confirming the said order dated 05.02.2024.

3. Respondent No.4 had submitted a proposal for passing order of preventive detention against the Petitioner. The said proposal submitted by Respondent No.4 was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Beed to Respondent No.2 on 12.01.2024. The Superintendent of Police had verified in-camera confidential statements recorded on 26.12.2023 and 28.12.2023 before forwarding the proposal. Based on the proposal, Respondent No.2 passed order of preventive detention against Petitioner on 05.02.2024. Simultaneously on the same day, the order of committal also came to be passed by Respondent No.2. Thegrounds for detention were also prepared on 05.02.2024. The order of preventive detention dated 05.02.2024 was approved by Respondent No.1 on 14.02.2024 in terms of Section 3(3) of the MPDA.

4. The order of preventive detention dated 05.02.2024 could not be served upon the Petitioner. The Petitioner was served with the said order on 15.09.2024 i.e. after a period of 7 months and 10 days. The Petitioner is lodged in Harsul Jail, Aurangabad pursuant to the order of preventive detention dated 05.02.2024 passed against him. The Petitioner made a representation to the Advisory Board on 15.09.2024. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board under Section 10 of the MPDA on 03.10.2024. The Advisory Board afforded opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and there were positive opinion for continuation of preventive detention on 23.10.2024. Based on the said opinion, Respondent No.1 has passed order dated 07.11.2024 confirming the order of preventive detention.

5. The Petitioner, who is aggrieved by the said order, has challenged the same in the present petition invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. Shri Rajendra Hange, learned counsel for the Petitioner draws our attention to the grounds of detention. He states that perusal of the grounds for detention recorded by Respondent No.2 will demonstrate that two FIRs registered on 31.10.2023, vide Crime No.341/2023 and Crime No.250/2023 have been taken into consideration by Respondent No.2. He states that these FIRs have been registered during the course of agitation for Maratha Reservation. He has taken us through the FIRs in both the matters. Perusal thereof will demonstrate that the FIRs are registered against around 600 to 700 people and around 50 persons have been identified in both the offences. The names of said 50 persons approximately are mentioned in both the FIRs. The other two FIRs are registered on 20.08.2019 and 29.06.2023. The learned counsel submits that although these two FIRs have not been taken into consideration, the first FIR registered in the year 2019 is far remote. As regards, second FIR registered on 29.06.2023, he states that the same is not very serious in nature, in as much as, the highest offence in the said FIR is pertaining to Section 324 of the IPC. As regards two FIRs on the basis of which subjective satisfaction is arrived at by Respondent No.2, he states that it is completely unjust and illegal to place a person under preventive detention for participating in a political protest. He states that the Petitioner has been singled out while placing him under preventive detent