DIPAK @ LOLYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.

(2.) By invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order of detention, dtd. 19/03/2024, passed by Sec. officer to Government of Maharashtra, Home department in MPDA-0224/CR-84/SPL-3B and order dtd. 01/02/2024 in no.2014/RB-1/DESK-2/T-4/MPDA/CR-08 passed by District Magistrate.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken us through the impugned orders and the material which was supplied to the petitioner by the detaining authority after passing of the order. Learned advocate submits that the offences referred in the grounds of detention are pending the investigation and the action under 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 (hereinafter referred to as the "MPDA Act") is not justifiable. Learned advocate further submits that respondent nos.1 and 2 have erroneously interpreted the provisions of MPDA Act while passing the detention order without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The two in camera statements, which are recorded by the detaining authority are not helpful to arrive at the subjective satisfaction. There is delay caused for taking action against the petitioner. He further submits that the alleged offences do not constitute that the petitioner is a habitual offender and based on the said the action taken against the petitioner is a drastic one. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that detention order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as it causes injustice to the petitioner.