SK ISRAIL SK BABBU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 26-2-2005 passed by respondent No. 2 Commissioner of Police, amravati in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with the Government Order No. DDS. 1303/10/part-IV/spl-3 (B) dated 23-12-2004, detaining the petitioner. The said order was approved by the State government on 3-3-2005 under section 3 (3) of the Act.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Loney, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

(3.) At the outset, Mr. Jaiswal submitted that in the impugned order the respondent No. 2 has not mentioned the period of detention and therefore, the detention order is vitiated. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2003 (3) Mh. LJ. 241 = 2003 All MR (Cri) 1057, Samsher Ali s/o Ramjan AH vs. State of maharashtra and another. In the said judgment this Court after placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and another vs. Gurubux Anandram Bhiryani, 1988 (Supp) SCC 568 allowed the petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of detention passed by the Commissioner of police, Nagpur on the ground that the period of detention was not specified. Per contra, Mr. Loney submitted that the judgment in the case of Gurubux bhiryani (supra) has been expressly overruled by the Apex Court by the judgment rendered in the case of Mrs. T. Devaki vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, AIR 1990 SC 1086. In the said judgment while overruling the judgment of the Apex Court in Gurubux Bhiryani's case, the Apex Court has held that the order of detention is not vitiated on the ground that the period of detention is not specified in the order. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court which has expressly overruled ratio laid down in Gurubux Bhirayani's case, we are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. We are also unable to place any reliance upon the judgment in samsher All's case (supra) rendered by this Court since the said judgment which has in turn relied upon the judgment in Gurubux Bhiryani's case has been overruled by the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court. Therefore, the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Samsher All s/o Ramjan Ali is per incurium and does not lay down the correct law in view of the subsequent judgment T. Devaki's case (supra). We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of Mr. Jaiswal that the detention order is vitiated on the ground that the period of detention is not mentioned in the impugned order.