SHEKHAR BHALCHANDRA SATAM Vs. A N ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short, "the said Act"), under an order of detention issued by respondent 1-the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. The order of detention is dated 27.3.2006.

(2.) THE order of detention along with grounds of detention and the material in support thereof was served on the petitioner on 31.3.006 and the petitioner was detained. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the said order of detention.

(3.) WE have heard at some length Mr.Kochrekar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr.Kochrekar submitted that the assertion made in the order of detention that the petitioner is a dangerous person as defined in Section 2(b-1) of the said Act; that he has unleashed a reign of terror and has became a perpetual danger to the society at large is not substantiated by the material placed before him. He submitted that first incident on which reliance is placed by the detaining authority can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to affect the maintenance of public order. The learned counsel submitted that it is clearly an incident which affects law and order. It is an individual dispute with which the public at large is not concerned. It was therefore wrong, contends the learned counsel, to include this case in the grounds of detention. The learned counsel submitted that therefore the satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated. He further submitted that the statements of witnesses A and B are recorded just to fill in the gap between the date on which the petitioner was released on bail i.e. on 3.11.2005 and the date of detention order i.e. 27.34.2006. The said statements are not genuine statements. The learned counsel submitted that the order of detention issued after a period of four and half months after the date on which the petitioner was released on bail is a delayed order. He submitted that there is no proper explanation for the delay and therefore the detention order must be set aside.