BHARATI ASHOK BHOIR Vs. O P BALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the detention of her husband Shri A.H.Bhoir (Detenu for short). The Commissioner of Police, Thane (Respondent No.1) by his order dated 02.08.1997 made in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981. (Hereinafter referred to as "Act" for short ) directed detention of the detenu with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the Public Order. The detention order was executed on the same day i.e. on 2/8/1997. Along with the detention order, the detenu was served with the grounds of detention. The detenu submitted his representation to the State Government on 25.08.1997 but the same was rejected on 30.09.1997.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the detention of the detenu on two counts, firstly, accordingly to her the relevant provisions of the Act are ultra vires the Constitution. Secondly, the detention order is bad in law and it discloses clear non application of mind on the part of the respondent No.1 since there is no material to show that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. So far as first count of challenge is concerned, we may point out that in Criminal Writ Petition No.786 of 1997 between Smt. Dagdibai Anand Jadhav Versus Shri. S.C.Malhotra, Commissioner of Police, Gr.Bombay and 2 others decided by us today only, the question of the validity of the Act was raised and Shri.Chitnis learned Counsel for the petitioner made common submissions in that respect. We however, rejected the submissions made by Shri, Chitnis and upheld the constitutional validity of the Act. It is therefore, not necessary for us to consider in this petition the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Act. We therefore, propose to dispose of this petition with reference to the second count of the challenge.

(3.) SHRI Chitnis contended before us that impugned detention order cannot be sustained since there is no sufficient material to conclude that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public Order. According to him satisfaction recorded by the Respondent No.1 discloses clear non application of mind. Shri.Chitnis also urged that the representation made by the detenu was not explicitly decided by the State Government. Shri.C.J.Sawant, learned Advocate General assisted by Shri. D.G.Bagve learned A.P.P. supported the detention order by submitting that no fault can be found with the impugned detention order.