MANDAR AJIT BORKAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai dated 14th October, 2011, in exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), on the ground that the petitioner is a dangerous person who has unleashed a reign of terror and have become a perpetual danger to the society at large in the concerned localities and areas adjoining thereto in the jurisdiction of the Police Station in Brihan Mumbai. Further, people residing and carrying out their daily avocations in the said localities and areas are terror stricken and their normal life is affected adversely. In other words, the petitioner was carrying on activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the concerned localities in Brihan Mumbai and Thane District.

(2.) Although diverse grounds have been raised to challenge the detention order during the course of argument, the Counsel for the petitioner confined the challenge on eight grounds to which we shall make reference hereinafter.

(3.) In substance, it is asserted that there is delay in passing of the detention order by the Detaining Authority which has vitiated the decision as there was no live-link with regard to the prejudicial activities necessitating detention of the petitioner. In ground (p), the delay in passing detention order essentially refers to three different stages. The first is between 23rd August, 2011 to 2nd September, 2011. However, during the course of arguments, the contention regarding delay in passing the detention order during this period is not pressed. The argument of the petitioner was with reference to delay in passing of the detention order between 2nd September, 2011 till 27th September, 2011 in the first place and again for the period between 27th September, 2011 to 7th October, 2011. Besides, it is argued that there was no material before the Detaining Authority that the live-link regarding the prejudicial activities of the petitioner has not been snapped. As a result, the detention order was vitiated.