SULTAN YAKUB QURESHI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard respective Counsel. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties.

(2.) By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged detention order dtd. 9/11/2020 passed by the Respondent No.1, Commissioner of Police, Solapur under Sec. 3 of The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders/ Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged In Black-marketing Of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "MPDA Act" for short), whereby the Petitioner has been detained. The detention order and the grounds of detention were served upon the Petitioner. His representation stood rejected, as a consequence of which, the Petitioner is before this Court challenging the detention order on various grounds.

(3.) The learned counsel, Ms. Jayashree Tripathi appearing for the Petitioner raised two specific grounds to challenge the detention order. These are grounds (c) and (f). Ground (c) raised on behalf of the Petitioner pertains to definition of "dangerous person" under the provisions of MPDA Act. It is emphasized that only two F.I.Rs..00have been referred to and relied upon in the detention order, which pertain to offences under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act and Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act. It is submitted the said offences do not indicate that the Petitioner has unleashed reign of terror or that he is a habitual offender, who has become dangerous for the lives and property of the society. It is further submitted that the recent F.I.R. registered against the Petitioner under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code also does not demonstrate that the activities of the Petitioner can be said to be prejudicial to public order, because he is merely alleged to be owner of vehicle which dashed some police personnel. The learned counsel relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rashidmiya @ Chhava Ahmedmiya Shaik Vs. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad and Another, reported in (1989) 3 Supreme Court Cases, 321 and Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh Vs. M.M. Mehta, Commissioner of Police and Others, reported in (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases, 237.