AJAY NAGESH NAGMODE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard respective Counsel. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties.

(2.) By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged detention order dtd. 11/1/2021 passed by the Respondent No.2, Commissioner of Police, Solapur under Sec. 3 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 Act" for short).

(3.) Although number of grounds have been raised in the writ petition, Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has pressed only three grounds in order to challenge the said detention order. The first ground of challenge raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that the verification of the in-camera statements of two witnesses was not in accordance with law and that the detaining authority i.e. Respondent No.2 did not properly verify the truthfulness of the in-camera statements. On this basis, it was submitted that the detention order stood vitiated as it relied upon the said two in-camera statements of witnesses.