NAGESH LAXMAN TAKMOGE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This a petition preferred by the petitioner / detenu - Nagesh Laxman Takmoge challenging the order of detention passed against him by the Commissioner of Police, Solapur City. The said order of detention has been passed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the "MPDA Act"). In view of the fact that the detenu is a dangerous person and his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, hence, to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the order of detention has been issued. The order of detention has not yet been executed and hence, this is a petition at the pre execution stage i.e. at a stage prior to the service of the order of detention on the detenu.

(2.) The original files relating to the detention order and grounds of detention as well as documents accompanying the same have been produced for our perusal by the learned APP. The grounds of detention set out the activities of the detenu as a dangerous person within a meaning of clause (b-1) of Section 2 of the MPDA Act. In the grounds of detention, there is a reference to recent incidents in which the detenu was involved based on which, the order of detention has been issued.

(3.) The learned A.P.P. has raised a preliminary objection that this petition at the pre-execution stage is wholly misconceived and is untenable since it does not fall under any of the five exceptions carved out by the Apex Court in the case of Additional Secretary to the Government of India and others Vs. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and Another 1992 Supp (1) S.C.C. 496. In the decision in the case of Alka Gadia, the Supreme Court has observed that it is not correct to say that the Courts have no power to entertain the grievances against any detention order prior to its execution. The Courts have the necessary power and they have used it in proper cases although such cases have been few and the grounds on which the Courts have interfered with them at the pre-execution stage are necessarily very limited in scope and number viz. where the Courts are prima facie satisfied