BABAN SHAMRAO PAWAR Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides finally with their consent.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by order of detention dtd. 5/2/2024 passed by the respondent no.1/District Magistrate, Beed under Sec. 3(1) 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 Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the MPDA Act for the sake of brevity and convenience).

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the subjective satisfaction by the respondent no.1 is arbitrary and perverse. In the absence of any expert opinion, conclusion has been reached that the activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is further submitted that translation of few english documents were not furnished causing prejudice to petitioner's right to make effective representation. Learned Counsel further submits that there is delay in deciding representation. It is further urged that there is delay in granting approval under Sec. 3(3) of the Act.