SATWINDER KAUR MAAN Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition to seek a writ of habeas corpus challenging the detention of her husband Shri Surjeetsingh son of Chandansingh Maan by the respondent No. 1 under the provisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (Amendment of 1996) (for short M. P. D. A. Act ), 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. 1301/44/spl 3 (B), dated 28th April, 2001, directing that Shri Surjeetsingh son of Chandansingh Maan be detained under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the M. P. D. A. Act along with an order that he should be detained in Nagpur Central Prison.

(2.) THE Detaining Authority, on being satisfied that the petitioners husband has been engaging, in contravention of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, in activities of a bootlegger, such as possessing, manufacturing, storing, transporting, selling, bottling of illicit liquor, country liquor, potable alcohol and foreign liquor resulting in the commission of violent and desperate acts, such as culpable homicide not amounting to murder, causing disappearance of evidence of offence and giving false information regarding an offence committed, on the basis of material placed before it, and being subjectively satisfied that the detenu has been operating in the districts of Nagpur and Wardha and active at village Chichbhawan under Kalmeshwar Police Station in the illicit activities of bottling liquor without licence and in contravention of the Copy Right Act, which has resulted in massive explosion resulting in the death of three persons engaged by the detenu for the above mentioned illicit activities, and he is also active at hotel Motel Highway (Dhaba), situated on National Highway No. 6 at village Palora under Karanja Police Station in Wardha District, which is a dry district and where he has been concerned with offences, such as possessing, storing, carrying, selling, manufacturing, bottling of illicit liquor, country liquor, potable alcohol and foreign liquor in contravention of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, and these activities as a bootlegger have adversely affected the maintenance of public order and even tempo of life and, therefore, the Detaining Authority was subjectively satisfied that the detenu was acting in a manner extremely prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and in view of his tendencies and/or inclinations reflected in the incidents specified in the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority was further satisfied that the detenu is likely to indulge in activities extremely prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future also and that it is necessary to detain him under the M. P. D. A. Act, to prevent him from acting in such a prejudicial manner in future and being so satisfied, issued an order of detention, which is under challenge. Pursuant to passing of the detention order, the petitioners husband came to be detained on 27-7-2001.

(3.) THE detention order got approval of the State Government on 4-8-2001. On 7-8-2001, the matter was referred to the Advisory Board, which gave its opinion on 9-9-2001, and on 17-9-2001, the State Government confirmed the order of detention.