SHAHNAWAJ KHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of both the parties. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the Writ of Habeas Corpus and praying for quashing and setting aside the order of detention dated 16th of July, 2013 passed by respondent No. 2 along with order dated 4th of September, 2013 passed by respondent No. 1.

(2.) The petitioner came to be detained by the respondent No. 2 by order dated 16th of July, 2013 in exercise of powers conferred to him under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (Amendment of 2009) (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act' for the sake of brevity). The said order came to be confirmed by respondent No. 1 - State vide order dated 4th of September, 2013. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petition.

(3.) Shri Daga, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the Authority has taken into consideration three crimes and four in-camera statements while passing the impugned order. He submits that insofar as the first two crimes are concerned, the same are related only against individual and therefore, same cannot be taken into consideration on the ground which would affect the public order. The learned counsel submits that at the most same would be against the law and order. Insofar as third ground is concerned, the learned counsel submits that the same is also not proximate to the detention order and there is considerable delay between the registration of the said offence i.e. 15th of January, 2013 and passing of the detention order dated 16th of July, 2013. It is further submitted that, insofar as other in-camera statements, one is recorded on 28th of March, 2013 and another is recorded on 2nd of April, 2013. However, all the four in-camera statements are verified on 24th of April, 2013. The learned counsel further submits that as per reply filed by respondent No. 2, the proposal was sent to the Detaining Authority on 20th of April, 2013. It is, therefore, submitted that if the proposal is submitted on 20th of April, 2013, then the in-camera statements which have been verified on 24th of April, 2013, could not have been taken into consideration while passing the impugned orders. The learned counsel further submits that there is inordinate delay from the date of the receipt of the proposal and passing of the impugned orders. The learned counsel submits that though specific ground in that regard is taken in paragraph No. 6 (h) of the petition, the reply is vague. He submitted that on short ground, the petition deserves to be allowed.