VIKAS @ VICKY ROHIDAS FUNDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of detention dtd. 9/11/2023, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City, is assailed in the Petition filed by the detenu, who is ordered to be detained under the provisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers (Drug- offenders, Dangerous persons and video pirates) Act, 1981, as the Detaining Authority is satisfied that it is necessary to detain him so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel Mr. Kharat for the petitioner and Mr. Gavand, learned APP for the State. Mr. Gavand has placed before us the affidavit affirmed by Mr. Amitesh Kumar, the present Commissioner of Police, Pune City and though we have taken the affidavit on record, we must note that the detention order is passed by the then Commissioner of Police, Pune city, Mr. Retesh Kumaarr, and the grounds of the detention are furnished to the detenu by the erstwhile Commissioner of Police, Pune City. The affidavit filed by the present Commissioner therefore, definitely cannot and do not reflect the subjective satisfaction reached by the Detaining Authority, who has passed the impugned order and who has communicated the grounds of detention to the detenu. The affidavit filed as stated in paragraph No.1 is based on the record and files pertaining to the detention order, which according to the deponent of the affidavit is believed to be true. We must make it very clear to Mr. Gavand the learned APP, that whenever the dentation order is passed by a particular authority, the affidavit must be affirmed by the said authority, as his successor definitely cannot discern the subjective satisfaction reached by his predecessor. We except that the public prosecutors appearing for the Detaining Authority, to keep this aspect in mind. Mr. Gavand has informed, that the erstwhile Detaining Authority has been transferred and promoted as Head of Home Guard Division Mumbai.

(3.) Mr. Kharat has referred to various grou-nds in the petition raising a challenge to the order of detention, but the prime ground raised by him is contained in paragraph No. (c) which reads to the following effect:-