VATAN BRAMHANAND WAGHMARE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order of detention dated 24th April, 2012 passed against his brother Shri Chetan Bramhanand Waghmare under sub-section (1) of Section 3 read with sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that by a recommendation dated 2nd February, 2012, the API of Upanagar Police Station, Nashik City, had sponsored a proposal for detention against the detenu viz. Chetan Brahmanand Waghmare (hereinafter referred to as "the detenu"). The Sponsoring Authority had placed the material before the Detaining Authority for the consideration of the said proposal. The Index of the said material placed before the authority is annexed to the petition and marked as Exhibit "C". After consideration of the material placed before the authority, the respondent No. 1 passed an order of detention on 24th April, 2012. The grounds of detention were also recorded on 24th April, 2012. The Respondent No. 1, on the basis of the material placed before him, had recorded a subjective satisfaction to the effect, that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make an order directing him to be detained under the said Act. The detenu had made a representation on 8th May, 2012. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, the representation was placed before the Advisory Board for consideration and revocation of the order on the date scheduled for the Advisory Board's meeting. According to the Counsel, the State Government had mechanically confirmed that the order of detention for one year is a very casual manner. The Counsel for the petitioner has raised the challenge to the order of detention on various grounds. The main grounds of detention challenging the order of detention are:

(2.) We have perused the record of the Petition.

(3.) The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their affidavits to answer the grounds raised in the petition. The respondent No. 1 has stated in his affidavit that he had recorded the subjective satisfaction on the basis of the material which were produced before him. He has admitted that bail applications filed by the detenu and the orders passed thereupon were not placed before him and hence they are not relied upon by him for recording subjective satisfaction.