JUDGMENT : Vibha Kankanwadi, J. 1. By invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing and setting aside order dated 10-10-2017 issued by the Section officer, Home Department of the respondent No.1; thereby confirming the order dated 24-08-2017 passed by respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Parbhani. 2. The factual matrix giving rise to the petition are that, the petitioner is resident of Vaitagwadi Tq. Sonpeth District Parbhani. He is an agriculturist by profession. It is his contention that, revenue officers and police personnel from the respondent No.3 have filed false complaints against him with an intention to see that he is harassed. All the offences stated in the report of respondent No. 3, are registered under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and Section 48 (7) (8) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. He has not been convicted up till now. Respondent No.3 had submitted report to respondent No.2 that due to the illegal activities of the petitioner near about 16 cognizable offences are registered and pending against him. It is stated that, already preventive action has been taken against the petitioner. It is alleged that, there is no change in the nature of the petitioner, and therefore, action under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'MPDA Act'), is required to be taken against the petitioner. On the basis of the said report, respondent No.2 had issued detention order dated 24-08-2017 without applying the mind. The said order is just the reproduction of the contents of the report submitted by respondent No.3. 3. Petitioner says that, all the allegations made against him are false and incorrect. While issuing the said order of detention, the police had not followed the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court. He was arrested for detention on 24-08-2017, when he was present in the house. He has been directly sent to Harsul Prison At Aurangabad. No information has been given regarding his arrest to the relatives and his signatures have been obtained by the police under pressure. After getting papers from the jail authorities, the relatives of the petitioner approached to take recourse under Section 10 of the MPDA Act. He has been directly sent to Harsul Prison At Aurangabad. No information has been given regarding his arrest to the relatives and his signatures have been obtained by the police under pressure. After getting papers from the jail authorities, the relatives of the petitioner approached to take recourse under Section 10 of the MPDA Act. The matter was then taken to the Advisory Board, however no opportunity was given to the petitioner to represent his case under Section 11 of the said Act, and directly submitted the report to the Government. The Government has also confirmed the said detention order illegally and against the principles of natural justice. The impugned order of the Government does not take into consideration the maximum period for which a person may be detained. The maximum period for which the person can be detained is 12 months but that cannot be at one stretch. The State Government in fact at one stretch can detain a person for a period not exceeding three months. 4. It is the further say of the petitioner that, the offences which have been registered regarding excavation and transportation of sand are between January 2016 to December 2016. The petitioner had booked various revenue officers under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the year 2015, and therefore, in order to take a revenge against the petitioner such action of his detention has been taken. The statement of alleged in-camera witnesses ought not to have been relied. The petitioner is acquitted from the offences those have been mentioned in their statement. Therefore, the order passed by the Government suffers from legality, and therefore he has prayed for setting it aside. 5. The petition has been objected by the respondents by filing affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent No.2. In fact the said affidavit is nothing but the reproduction of the facts which have been part of the report against the petitioner and the orders passed against him, and therefore they are not reproduced here. 6. Heard learned advocate Mr. E.P. Sawant holding for Mr. M.P. Kale, Advocate for petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr. K.S. Patil for respondent - State. 7. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that, the order that has been passed by the respondent No.2 – the District Magistrate, Parbhani clearly discloses that an opportunity of hearing has not been given to the petitioner. M.P. Kale, Advocate for petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr. K.S. Patil for respondent - State. 7. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that, the order that has been passed by the respondent No.2 – the District Magistrate, Parbhani clearly discloses that an opportunity of hearing has not been given to the petitioner. Further there is absolutely no application of mind by him. He also refers to the statements of in-camera witnesses, however the contents of the statements given by him would show that the petitioner is acquitted from those offences. The acquittal of the petitioner from some of the offences has not been taken note of and without considering the provisions of the Act that he can not authorize the detention for a period of one year. The order that has been passed by the State Government would also show that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forth his say and it exceeds the maximum limit. 8. He has relied on the decision in Narhari S/o Kashinath Ade Versus The State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Writ Petition No. 1527 of 2017, decided by this Court on 05 December, 2017), and Satish s/o Bhimrao Dolse Versus The Superintendent of Police and others (Criminal Writ Petition No. 1216 of 2017, decided on 15th November, 2017). Both these petitions have been allowed. Further he relied on the decision in Lahu Shrirang Gatkal Versus State of Maharashtra Through The Secretary and Others, (2017) 13 SCC 519 , wherein it has been held that, “Blanket order of detention passed against the appellant without specifying period of a detention is invalid, since proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 3 mandates a period to be specified in the detention order with maximum cap of six months at the first instant”. 9. Per contra, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that, a detailed report was submitted regarding the criminal activities of the petitioner by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2. Statements of two in-camera witnesses were also given in detailed. After perusing the entire report and the say of the petitioner to the notice given under the Section, respondent No.2 has passed a detailed order. The perusal of the said detailed order would show that respondent No.2 had perused all the documents carefully and had applied his mind. Statements of two in-camera witnesses were also given in detailed. After perusing the entire report and the say of the petitioner to the notice given under the Section, respondent No.2 has passed a detailed order. The perusal of the said detailed order would show that respondent No.2 had perused all the documents carefully and had applied his mind. Further it was also informed to the petitioner that, he can make a representation to the Advisory Board against the order of detention. The Advisory Board had opined that, there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenu, therefore the final order has been passed by the government. As regards the period of detention i.e. one year is concerned, he relied on the decision in T. Devaki Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, reported in 1990 AIR (SC) 1086 (Three Judge Bench). Though this case was under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982, the said section was identical to Section 3 of MPDA Act. He brought paragraphs No.7 and 10 of the said decision to our notice and submitted that, the law is that the period of detention can be fixed only after the opinion of the Advisory Board is received. Fixation of period of detention by the State government is as per Section 12 of the MPDA Act. 10. We agree with the submissions on behalf of the respondents. It is to be noted that a detailed report was submitted by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 and in all eight criminal offences were registered against the petitioner. For a ready reference, they are reproduced here; Sr. No. Police Station Crime No./ Section Status 1. Gangakhed 92/2011, U/s.324, 341, 323, 504, 506 of IPC Sub-judice (Ld.Adv. Submitted certified copy of Judgment in RCC No.65/2011, dtd.11-8-2014 showing that petitioner is acquitted.) 2. Sonpeth 11/2016, U/s. 379, 34 of IPC, 48 (7) (8) of Mines and Minerals Act Sub-judice 3. Sonpeth 13/2016, U/s. 379, 34 of IPC, 48 (7) (8) of Mines and Minerals Act Sub-judice 4. Sonpeth 28/2016, U/s. 379, 353, 34 of IPC, 48 (7) (8) of Mines and Minerals Act Under investigation 5. Gangakhed 254/2016, U/s.353, 323, 504, 506, 34 of IPC 48 Under investigation 6. Sonpeth 243/2016, U/s. 452, 323, 504, 506, 34 of IPC Under investigation 7. Sonpeth 28/2016, U/s. 379, 353, 34 of IPC, 48 (7) (8) of Mines and Minerals Act Under investigation 5. Gangakhed 254/2016, U/s.353, 323, 504, 506, 34 of IPC 48 Under investigation 6. Sonpeth 243/2016, U/s. 452, 323, 504, 506, 34 of IPC Under investigation 7. Gangakhed 452/2016, U/s. 323, 504, 506 of IPC The complainant has been told to approach the Court of law 8. Sonpeth 98/2017, U/s. 379, 34 of IPC, 48 (7) (8) of Mines and Minerals Act Under investigation After the said report of respondent No. 3 was filed including the statements of in-camera persons, a notice came to be issued to the petitioner calling upon him to make his submissions for the proposed action. The petitioner has replied the said notice. 11. Important point to be noted is that, it appears that the petitioner had not filed the certified copy of Judgment in Regular Criminal Case No.65 of 2011 before the District Magistrate along with his say because the said certified copy has been obtained by making application on 07-09-2017, whereas the order that has been passed by respondent No.2 regarding detention is dated 24-08-2017. On the basis of the said certified copy it was tried to be submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the District Magistrate has not taken note of the acquittal of the petitioner from that offence and it is an example of how the respondent No.2 had not applied his mind. No doubt the respondent No.3 ought to have taken a note of the acquittal of the petitioner way back in 2014 from the said offence while submitting his report to respondent No.2, however that does not mean that not taking note of the acquittal of one of the offence, by the respondent No.2, amounts to non-application of mind by respondent No.2. Independently respondent No.2 cannot have the knowledge about the acquittal. It has to be either through respondent No.3 or the petitioner. The petitioner is not giving any reason as to why he had not filed certified copy of the Judgment along with his say to the notice. Under such circumstance he cannot blame now the respondents for not taking note of his acquittal from one of the offences out of eight offences. 12. The petitioner is not giving any reason as to why he had not filed certified copy of the Judgment along with his say to the notice. Under such circumstance he cannot blame now the respondents for not taking note of his acquittal from one of the offences out of eight offences. 12. Out of the other seven offences, offences at Serial No.2 and 3 are sub-judice before Court of law, Serial No.4, 5, 6 and 8 are under investigation. No doubt Serial No.7 was a non-cognizable offence yet there was a complaint of a criminal nature against the petitioner. 13. Further the order passed by respondent No.2 also shows that on four occasions fine has been imposed on the petitioner for sand smuggling and an action under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure appears to have been taken against the petitioner in 2011. Therefore, respondent No.2 has definitely taken note of the criminal activities alleged against petitioner. Paragraph No.5 of the order dated 24-08-2017 clearly says that, respondent No.2 believed the facts stated in the confidential report to be true. Further he was also convinced that the petitioner is causing financial loss to the Government on large scale by illegal transportation of the minerals. He has specifically stated that, he has perused all the documents and was of the opinion that the petitioner has created a feeling of terror among the citizenry and government officials of Gangakhed and Sonpeth areas. His subjective satisfaction was important. 14. The entire perusal of the order would show that, definitely the respondent No. 2 had properly applied his mind to the facts stated in the report and the say to the notice given by the petitioner. That order does not suffer from any illegality. All the precautions are taken to mention that even against the said order, the petitioner has a right of representation. The limitation for the representation has also been quoted in the said order. Further it is also to be noted that a letter has been given on 25-08-2017 by API Sonpeth Police Station to the father of the petitioner stating that his son has been arrested and would be detained in Aurangabad Central Jail. That means, the legal requirement has been complied with. 15. Further it is also to be noted that a letter has been given on 25-08-2017 by API Sonpeth Police Station to the father of the petitioner stating that his son has been arrested and would be detained in Aurangabad Central Jail. That means, the legal requirement has been complied with. 15. Thereafter, the matter was put before the Advisory Board appointed under the Act, and it appears that the Board opined that there is sufficient cause for detention of the said detenu. The representation was in fact has been considered by the Advisory Board, and therefore the final order has been passed to confirm the detention order passed by respondent No.2. It appears that the procedure before the Board was legally conducted. 16. Now the objection is taken as regards the period of one year that has been mentioned in the order. We would like to reproduce the relevant Sections here; “12. Action upon report of Advisory Board – (1) In any case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is, in its opinion, sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the State Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period, not exceeding the maximum period prescribed by Section 13, as it thinks fit. (2) In any case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is, in its opinion, no sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned, the State Government shall revoke the detention order and cause the person to be released forthwith. 13. Maximum period of detention – The maximum period for which any person may be detained, in pursuance of any detention order made under this Act, which has been confirmed under Section 12, shall be [twelve months] from the date of detention.” In this regard the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lahu Shrirang Gatkal's case (Supra) had held that, Sub-section (2) of Section 3 mandates period to be specified in detention order with maximum cap of six months at first instant. That was a two Judge Bench decision. In T. Devaki's case, which was a three Judge Bench decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to interpret the aforesaid provisions. The order passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1766 of 2017 and connected matters (Sachin @ Bobby Sambhaji Shinde Vs. That was a two Judge Bench decision. In T. Devaki's case, which was a three Judge Bench decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to interpret the aforesaid provisions. The order passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1766 of 2017 and connected matters (Sachin @ Bobby Sambhaji Shinde Vs. The Commissioner of Police Solapur and others) decided at the Principal Seat of this High Court, decided on 13th October, 2017 is required to be taken a note of, in which the both the above decisions have been taken into consideration. It has been observed in Paragraphs No.12 and 13 as follows; “12. In the case of Mrs. T. Devaki (supra), a bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Apex Court, in paragraph 15 dealt with the effect of the failure to mention the period of detention in the order of detention. In paragraphs 7 and 10 the Apex Court has held thus : “7. The first contention is founded on the provisions of Section 3 of the Act which read as under : “3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons.— (1) The State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any bootlegger or drug offender (or forest offender) or goonda or immoral traffic offender or slum grabber that with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. (2) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing, or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, they may, by order in writing, direct that during such period as may be specified in the order, such District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (1), exercise the powers conferred by the said subsection: Provided that the period specified in the order made by the State Government under this subsection shall not, in the first instance, exceed three months, but the State Government may, if satisfied as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend such order to extend such period from time to time by any period not exceeding three months at any one time.” “10. Provisions of the aforesaid sections are inbuilt safeguards against the delays that may be caused in considering the representation. If the time frame, as prescribed in the aforesaid provisions is not adhered to, the detention order is liable to be struck down and the detenu is entitled to freedom. Once the order of detention is confirmed by the State Government, maximum period for which a detenu shall be detained cannot exceed 12 months from the date of detention. The Act nowhere requires the detaining authority to specify the period for which the detenu is required to be detained. The expression “the State Government are satisfied that it is necessary so to do, they may, by order in writing direct that during such period as may be specified in the order” occurring in sub-section (2) of Section 3 relates to the period for which the order of delegation issued by the State Government is to remain in force and it has no relevance to the period of detention. The legislature has taken care to entrust the power of detention to the State Government; as the detention without trial is a serious encroachment on the fundamental right of a citizen, it has taken further care to avoid a blanket delegation of power, to subordinate authorities for an indefinite period by providing that the delegation in the initial instance will not exceed a period of three months and it shall be specified in the order of delegation. But if the State Government on consideration of the situation finds it necessary, it may again delegate the power of detention to the aforesaid authorities from time to time but at no time the delegation shall be for a period of more than three months. The period as mentioned in Section 3 (2) of the Act refers to the period of delegation and it has no relevance at all to the period for which a person may be detained. Since the Act does not require the detaining authority to specify the period for which a detenu is required to be detained, order of detention is not rendered invalid or illegal in the absence of such specification.” (emphasis added) “13. Hence, the law is that the period of detention can be fixed only after the opinion of Advisory Board is received. Hence, the law is that the period of detention can be fixed only after the opinion of Advisory Board is received. Therefore, the failure to mention the period of detention in the first order does not attract any illegality. Hence, the view taken in the cases of Cherukuri Mani w/o Narendra Chowdari (supra) and Lahu Shrirang Gatkal (supra) by a Bench of two Hon'ble Judges is contrary to what is held earlier by a larger Bench in the case of T. Devaki.” Further after taking note of the legal position in respect of divergence of views expressed by the Co-ordinate Benches. It has been held that, “16. Therefore, what binds this Court is the decisions in the case of T. Devaki and Mrs. Harpreettt Kaur Harvinder Singh Bedi (supra). In the light of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Makhan Singh (supra), the outer limit of the detention can be fixed by the State Government only after opinion of the Advisory Board is received. That what section 12 of the said Act provides. Therefore, the even if the original order of detention under sub-sections (1) or (2) does not mention the period of detention, it will not vitiate the order of detention. In the cases in hand, the State Government has fixed the period of detention as per Section 12 of the said Act.” 17. Therefore, it is to be noted from the above discussion that even if there is mention of period of detention by respondent No.2 in his order, that order will not vitiate a detention. On the contrary that order of detention gets confirmed to its full extent after the respondent No.1 – State had fixed the period of detention as per Section 12 of the Act. There is no merit in this submission. The detention order passed by respondent No. 2 and then the order of confirming the said order by respondent No. 1 does not suffer from any illegality or error in law. Taking into consideration the illegal activities mentioned in the report of respondent No.3, after applying mind the respondent No.2 had passed the order of detention and it has been legally confirmed by respondent No.1. 18. Taking into consideration the illegal activities mentioned in the report of respondent No.3, after applying mind the respondent No.2 had passed the order of detention and it has been legally confirmed by respondent No.1. 18. The decision in Narhari Ade's case and Satish Dolse's case (Supra) will not come to help of the petitioner for the simple reason that as regards the petitioners therein though there were many offences against them mostly in respect of Maharashtra Prohibition Act, learned Magistrate before whom the proceedings were pending had stopped the proceedings by invoking the powers under Section 258 of Code of Criminal Procedure. On the contrary the observations in paragraph No.11 of the Judgment of Narhari Ade takes a note of the decision in T. Devaki's case (Supra). It has been observed that, “Without burdening the Judgment we therefore discard a submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the impugned order is illegal since it directs detention of the petitioner for a period of one year.” The order was discarded on other grounds relating to the facts of the case. Furthermore in Satish Dolse's case (Supra) it was found that, no specific reasons were assigned for the externment of the petitioner therein from the Jalna District. It was in fact a case of externment order under Section 56 (1) (b) of Maharashtra Police Act. The consideration for application of mind in respect of that order are different. 19. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the present petition, hence the petition is dismissed.