(1.) This Writ Petition is filed with following prayer:
B) By issuing writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or directions in the like nature, the order passed by the respondent no.3 - Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad dated 4.06.2016 and the order of confirmation passed by the Advisory Board dated 14.07.2016 may kindly be quashed and set aside;
(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner restricted his arguments confined to the ground nos. IX to XVII, which were inserted by way of amendment as per the leave granted by this Court on 14th March, 2017. The learned counsel submits that, there was no period of detention mentioned in the order dated 4th June, 2016, passed by the Detaining Authority, and the State Government while confirming the order of detention extended the period of detention for the period of one year and while doing so has not recorded any reasons. Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. In support of the aforesaid contention, he pressed into service judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and anr. v. Gurbux Anandram Bhiryani and submits that, the Supreme Court in the said Judgment has observed that, the order of detention is bad on the ground that period of detention has not been indicated by the detaining authority.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the detaining authority, while passing the impugned order, neither assigned any reasons nor arrived at the subjective satisfaction, and in particular disturbance to the public order due to the alleged prejudicial activities of the petitioner. He further submits that, the order of Detaining Authority shows that reliance has been placed specifically on incamera statements of the witnesses 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D', however, copies of the incamera statements of the witnesses supplied to the petitioner have been annexed to the Petition which do not contain verification. He submits that in view of the law laid down by the Bombay High Court Bench at Principal Seat, in the case of Swapnil Sanjay Tahsildar v. District Magistrate and Ors., 2013 All.M.R. [Cri.] 16, it is necessary that there should be verification made of the incamera statements and the copies of the verification needs to be furnished to the petitioner detenu.
It is further submitted that, the dangerous person is defined as per Section 2 (b1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 [for short 'MPDA Act']. However, in the present case, the Detaining Authority has failed to prove that the petitioner is dangerous person within the meaning of Section 2 [b1] of the MPDA Act. He further submits that the petitioner belongs to 'Rajput Community', and he understands Hindi language but the copy of the order along with the proposal which was supplied to the petitioner is in English and Marathi, and therefore, the petitioner could not submit his representation properly as he does not understand either Marathi or English. It is submitted that, there was no any verification of the incamera statements recorded by the authority, and therefore, on that ground also, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of the aforesaid contention, he invites our attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Principal Seat in the case of Yuvraj Ramchandra Pawar v. Ramaswami N.(Dr.), and Ors. 2016 All M.R. [Cri.] 930, also the judgment of the Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur in the case of Anil s/o Damodhar Paunipagar v. State of Maharashtra, and Ors. 2000 (2) Mh.L.J. 400, and the judgment of the Bombay High Court at Principal Seat in the case of Jay v. The Commissioner of Police Pune, and Ors. 2015 All M.R. (Cri.) 4437, and also the judgment of the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad in the case of Deepak v. The Commissioner of Police, Pune City, and ors. in Criminal Writ Petition No.1237 of 2016, decided on 19.12.2016. ;