The petitioner, Yogesh Udaram Gokhe, challenging a detention order passed by the respondents under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act. The petitioner argues that the detention order lacks the necessary subjective satisfaction, relies on ongoing investigations and past history without sufficient evidence of causing public disorder, and is politically motivated due to his opposition party affiliation. The respondents argue that the petitioner is a habitual offender involved in illegal sand mining, posing a threat to public order, and that the detention order followed proper legal procedures.

Parties and Proceedings

• Petitioner: Yogesh Udaram Gokhe, represented by Advocate Mr. Jadhav.
• Respondents: Represented by learned APP Mr. Doifode.
• Court: Heard under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Rule and Final Hearing

• Rule Issued: The petition is heard finally with the consent of the parties.

Detention Order Challenge

• Order Challenged: Detention order No.ADM/Home/Desk14(1) MPDA/WS 59/24 dated 05/02/2024 and its approval dated 14/02/2024.
• Grounds for Challenge: Alleged lack of subjective satisfaction, reliance on ongoing investigations, political motivation, and procedural lapses.

Arguments by Petitioner’s Advocate

• Subjective Satisfaction: Lack of proper subjective satisfaction by the Detaining Authority.
• Investigation Status: Cases against petitioner are pending or under investigation.
• Political Motive: Petitioner is an active opposition politician.
• Past Cases: Consideration of past cases without clear link to public disorder.
• In-camera Statements: Delay and lack of verification in recording statements of witnesses.

Legal Precedents Cited by Petitioner

• Amol Alias Guddu Khorgade v. The Commissioner of Police: Emphasis on subjective satisfaction.
• Nevanath Bujji v. State of Telangana: Preventive detention laws as draconian measures and criteria for subjective satisfaction.

Respondent’s Arguments

• Habitual Offender: Petitioner involved in illegal sand mining and threats.
• Procedural Compliance: Proper legal procedures followed in detention and verification of witness statements.
• Public Order: Petitioner’s activities causing public fear and disturbance.

Legal Precedents Cited by Respondents

• State of Tamil Nadu v. Nabila: Preventive detention justified by suspicion and reasonability.
• Bhushan Vijay Rane v. State of Maharashtra: Consideration of delay in issuing detention order.
• Sadashiv Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra: Verification of witness statements by senior police officers.

Court’s Analysis

• Investigation Status: Ongoing investigation in Crime No.506 of 2023 not sufficient for detention.
• Subjective Satisfaction: Lack of material evidence for subjective satisfaction.
• Public Order: Petitioner’s activities not proven to affect public order significantly.

Advisory Board’s Role

• Evaluation: Advisory Board's role in confirming or revoking detention orders.
• Active Review: Advisory Board must independently review and justify detention orders.

Conclusion and Order

• Quashing of Orders: Detention order dated 05/02/2024 and approval dated 14/02/2024 are quashed.
• Release: Petitioner to be released forthwith if not required in any other offense.
• Rule Made Absolute: In favor of the petitioner.