VINOD DHANNULAL JAISWAL Vs. DIST. MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service for all the respondents. At the joint request of the parties the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) By resorting to the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the respondent No.1 - Detaining Authority under Sec. 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords,void Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (herein after the MPDA Act) dtd. 14/7/2023, directing his detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the mandates of public order being a bootlegger. He has taken into consideration inter alia, twelve crimes registered against him of which the last three were under the provisions of Sec. 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 (the Prohibition Act) registered on 31/3/2023, 17/6/2023 and 18/6/2023. He took into consideration that even a preventive action under Sec. 93 of the Prohibition Act initiated against him on 31/3/2023. The respondent No.1 - Detaining Authority has also taken into consideration statements of couple of anonymous witnesses to arrive at a subjective satisfaction while passing the order of preventive detention.

(3.) On the very day of the order, after the grounds of detention (Exhibit-E) were communicated to the petitioner, he was committed to the prison. The order was forwarded to the State which accorded approval under Sec. 3(3) of the MPDA Act on 20/7/2023 which was also communicated to him on the same day i.e. 20/7/2023.