ADIL KHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard fnally at admission stage.

(2.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of detention No.2021/MPDA/DET4/CB-70 dtd. 12/8/2021 under sec. 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggters, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short hereinafter called as 'the Act of 1981') passed by the respondent no.2, confrmed by the Advisory Board in reference no.128 of 2021 by order dtd. 22/9/2021 observing that there are suffcient grounds for the detention of the above detenue under sec. 3 (3) of the Act of 1981. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the detaining authority has not assigned any cogent reasons nor arrived at a subjective satisfaction about the activities of the petitioner pre-judicial to the maintenance of the public order. Learned counsel submits that, in terms of sec. 2(a)(iv) of the Act of 1981 a 'dangerous person' means he is engaged, or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as a dangerous person, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order. The learned counsel submits that in terms of the explanation for the purpose of clause (a), the public order shall be deemed to have been affected adversely, or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely, if any of the activities of any of the persons referred to in this clause, directly or indirectly, is causing or calculated to cause any harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity, among the general public or any sec. thereof. The learned counsel submits that, in terms of sec. 2 (b-1) "dangerous person" means a person, who either by himself or as a member or leader of gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of any of the offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code or any of the offences punishable under Chapter V of the Arms Act, 1959. Learned counsel submits that the detenue had given no opportunity to make a effective representation to the competent authority, which amounts to clear breach of the basic principles of preventive detention law under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submits that, the order of detention is illegal and bad in law for non-furnishing of the documents in the language known to the detenue. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detaining authority has referred fve cases in the impugned order and out of which Crime No.303 of 2021 registered with Begumpura Police Station is under sec. 160 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the detenue submits that, sec. 160 of IPC do not fall within the ambit of chapter XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code, which is basic requirement of the detention order. Thus, the detaining authority has considered irrelevant materials for passing an order of detention. The same amounts to non-application of the mind by the detaining authority.