DHANANJAY ALIAS DHANRAJ DHANYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of parties. Learned APP waives service for the respondents.

(2.) In this writ petition, for the writ of Habeas Corpus, the petitioner has impugned detention order dated 27th July, 2006 passed by Commissioner of police, Aurangabad, under section 3 (1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) , confirmed by the Home Department (Special) of the State Government (respondent No. 1) by order dated 7th August, 2006 under section 3 (3) of the Act.

(3.) Inspector of Police of Kranti Chowk Police Station (respondent No. 3) sponsored a proposal for detention of the petitioner. On consideration of this proposal, Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad (respondent No. 2) , on being satisfied from the material placed before him, that the petitioner habitually indulges in activities prejudicial to the public order within the area of his operation and that the remedies available under ordinary laws have proved to be ineffective in curbing his nefarious activities, passed Detention Order dated 27th july, 2006. The order was served on the petitioner and he was detained in Central prison, Aurangabad. On the same day, information regarding his detention was communicated to his father. Copies of the grounds for his detention with Marathi translation, were supplied to the petitioner on 29th July, 2006. The petitioner was apprised of his right to make a representation to the Advisory Board and to the state Government. Report in respect of the detention of the petitioner dated 27th july, 2006 was forwarded to the Government on 31st July, 2006. The order was approved by respondent No. 1 on 3rd August, 2006 and a reference was made to the Advisory Board on the same day. The petitioner made a representation through Adv. Talwar on 8th August, 2006. Remarks of the Detaining Authority were received on 14th August, 2006. The representation was routed through proper channel to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home). The Advisory Board heard the petitioner on 25th August, 2006. During the course of hearing, the petitioner submitted a written representation. After considering the representation, the Board rejected his representation and forwarded its opinion dated 31st August, 2006 to respondent No. 1. The opinion of the Advisory Board was received by the Home Department of respondent No. 1 on 1st September, 2006. Report of the Advisory Board and other material placed before him, was placed before the Additional Chief Secretary (Home). The Additional Chief secretary (Home) , who is duly empowered for the purpose under the Rules of business of respondent No. 1, made under Article 166 of the Constitution, considered the material placed before him, on 2nd September, 2006. After considering material placed before him and satisfying himself that the detention of the petitioner is necessary, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) confirmed the order of detention of the petitioner for the period of one year, on 4th september, 2006. It is not in dispute that the time schedule for approval of the detention order as required by the provisions of the Act is adhered to by the respondents.