VINOD VITHAL RANE Vs. R H MENDONCA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these five writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek to challenge the respective detention orders passed by Shri R. H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Birhan Mumbai, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 3 (1) of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 55 of 1981) with a view to prevent the detenus therein from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order.

(2.) THAT each of the detenu in the respective writ petition has been detained on the ground that he is a dangerous person of violent character and a weapon wielding desperado indulging in terrorizing activities. The grounds of detention served on each of the detenu mention that they were indulging in criminal activities and had created a reign of terror in the minds of public in the areas of Geetanagar and areas adjoining thereto within the jurisdiction of Colaba Police Station in Brihan Mumbai, for they were moving armed with deadly weapons such as chopper, knife and sword and did not hesitate to use the same while committing offences such as rioting, assault, extortion, robbery, criminal intimidation and threatening the peace loving citizens of the above said areas. The grounds of detention specifically mention that the even tempo of life of the citizens in the above areas is badly disturbed as the people in the areas are experiencing a sense of insecurity and are living and carrying on their daily avocation under a constant shadow of fear. The grounds of detention also mention that each of the detenu is a habitual criminal and action taken against him under the normal law of land is found to be ineffective and inadequate to put a stop to his criminal activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the said area.

(3.) THE only argument pressed before us in all these writ petitions (grounds 6 (n) and (o) of the writ petition) is that the satisfaction recorded in para 5 of the grounds of detention is not based on any valid material; that there is no material on record to show as to whether action under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for keeping peace was initiated against the detenu; that there is no material to show that externment proceeding under section 56 of the Bombay Police Act was ever taken against the detenu. It is contended that in absence of any such action taken under the said laws of land, the Detaining Authority could not have recorded its satisfaction that the normal law of land was ineffective and inadequate to put a stop to the detenus prejudicial activities. It is thus contended that in absence of the above it would clearly show non application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority, for which reason the detention order is illegal and bad in law. It is further contended that the Detaining Authority having failed to take any action under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and Bombay Police Act, whose impact/effect is of lesser evil or minimal with reference to the deprivation of the liberty of a citizen, resorting to an action under detention is not justified. It is further contended that the alleged prejudicial activities of the detenus were confined to the areas under the Colaba Police Station of Bombay; only an action of externment of the detenu from Colaba area or areas adjoining to that area would have been apposite instead of taking action under the preventive law which takes away the liberty of a citizen. It is also contended that there is not even a whisper in the grounds of detention to justify the satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority in para 5 of the grounds of detention that action under the normal law of land was ever contemplated by the Detaining Authority before clamping the order of detention and more so when even an action of externment under the Bombay Police Act could have subserved the purpose of preventive action against the detenus on the self same grounds. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that externment action under the Bombay Police Act is also a preventive action, as observed by the Apex Court in the case of (Pandharinath Rangnekar v. The State of Maharashtra), reported in 1973 (1) S. C. C. Page 813.