SONU @ SUBODH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The challenge in this petition is to the impugned detention order dtd. 18/8/2023 and confirmation order dtd. 19/9/2023 passed in terms of Sec. 3(1) 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 (for short "M.P.D.A. Act").

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner has raised several grounds for challenging the detention order, however, the two cases which the detaining authority has taken into consideration were the cases under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 and in these two cases the Police Authorities did not even deem it necessary to arrest the petitioner. The notice under Sec. 41A(1) Code of Criminal Procedure was issued. He, therefore, submits that after one or two months there was hardly any question of detaining authority being satisfied that the petitioner could be preventively detained under the provisions of said Act. Even otherwise the grounds of detention order points out routine law and order situation for which the drastic power of preventive detention could not have been exercised. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned detention order warrants interference.