VIJAY DAMAJI GAIDHANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offender and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short, the "said Act" ). The detention order was issued on 21-12-1999 by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act read with Government Order, Home Department (Special) No. DDS. 1399/4/spl. 3 (B) dated 19th November, 1999. The detention order was served on the petitioner on the same day and the grounds in support of detention order were served on 22-12-1999. The detention order was approved by the State Government on 1-1-2000. Reference under section 10 of the said Act was made to the Advisory Board on 1-1-2000. The Advisory Board gave its opinion on 31-1-2000. The decision order was confirmed by the State Government on 10-2-2000.

(2.) THE petitioner was ordered to be detained on the strength of his involvement in Crime No. 489/99 of Police Station, Sadar, Nagpur under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and four in camera statements recorded by the police; complaint dated 2-11-1999 from some of the residents of Gitti Khadan as well as telephonic intimations which were recorded in the Station Diary. The petitioner has been classified as "dangerous person" under the said Act.

(3.) THE petitioner challenge his detention on various grounds including that the criminal case under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as also four secret complaints do not make out a case of breach of any public order; that the Detaining Authority failed to communicate to the petitioner that he had a right to make representation to the Detaining Authority within a period of 12 days; that the incamera statements are stereo-type-written in one sitting except change of date and name and they do not relate to public order; that the bail papers relating to the criminal offences have not been furnished; that only on the strength of one offence the petitioner could not be dubbed as habitual dangerous person; that though the cases referred in grounds 1 to 4 are said to have been not considered, yet the same have crept into the formation of opinion for the purpose of detention; that on the strength of cases relating to violation of provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, the petitioner could not be classified as "dangerous person" nor 24 offences referred to in the grounds of detention committed by others would have any bearing whatsoever for the detention of the petitioner; that the petitioner knows only Marathi and some of the documents have been furnished in English and no Marathi translations have been given as a result of which the petitioner could not make effective and purposeful representation and that the detention order is illegal and bad in law.