SHUBHAM BALASAHEB KARDULE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the admission stage with consent of counsel for the parties.

(2.) By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks to challenge the detention order and committal order dtd. 24/11/2025 bearing No.2025/RB-Desk- 1/Pol-1/MPDA-23, passed by Respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Beed in exercise of powers under Sec. 3 (2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drugoffenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers, Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities, Illegal Gambling, Illegal Lottery and Human Trafficker Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "MPDA Act "), as well as the approval order dtd. 2/12/2025 and confirmation order dtd. 1/1/2026 passed by Respondent No.1-State Government in exercise of powers under Ss. 3(3) and 12(1) of the MPDA Act, respectively. By the impugned detention order, the petitioner has been directed to be detained on the ground that the petitioner is a "sand smuggler " within the meaning of Sec. 2 (e-2) of the MPDA Act, as according to the detaining authority the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(3.) It seems that the Police Inspector, Police Station Ashti, Beed submitted a proposal seeking detention of the petitioner. The said proposal appears to have been routed through the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sub-Division Ashti and Superintendent of Police, Beed and eventually placed before Respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Beed who in turn found that the petitioner 's detention is necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to public order. It is pertinent to note that, the basis for submission of the said proposal is registration of two (2) past criminal cases against the petitioner, which are summarised as follows :