ANIL VITKAR Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition filed by the petitioner who is brother-in-law of one Shri Ganesh Narayan Mane, who has been detained by the Commissioner of Police, Pune by an order of detention dated 08.09.2017, assails the order of detention and after quashing and setting aside the same, prays to release the detenu forthwith. For effective adjudication of the present petition, we find it necessary to cull out the necessary facts and events leading to file the present Writ Petition:- The respondent No.2, Commissioner of Police, Pune on being satisfied that Shri Ganesh Narayan Mane needs to be detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black-marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (hereinafter in short as "M.P.D.A. Act, 1981), with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order passed an order of detention on 08.09.2017 in exercise of power conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act directed that the detenu be detained under the said Act for a period of one year from the date of service of order upon him. On the same date, the Detaining Authority passed committal order directing detention of the detenu in Nashik Central Prison, Nashik under the conditions including conditions as to maintenance of discipline and punishment for breach of discipline laid down in the M.P.D.A Act, 1981. The detention order was served on the detenu on 08.09.2017 and he was detained in Nashik Road, Central Prison. On 08.09.2017 itself the detenu was served with grounds of detention as contemplated under Section 8 of the M.P.D.A. Act, 1981.

(2.) The grounds of detention set out that the criminal record of the detenu was reflective of his conduct of indulging himself in selling illicit liquor and thereby endangering human life and ruining poor families. The grounds of detention reveal that the detenu was habitually committing offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and he was engaged in bootlegging activities and the detenu was clamped as "Bootlegger" as defined in Section 2. (b) of the Act and the said activities are found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The Detaining Authority referred to the past activities of the detenu for passing the detention order but had relied on a crime registered in the recent past vide CR. No.247/2017 under Section 65(F) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. Reliance was also placed on nine in-camera statements which came to be recorded in the background, that no person was ready to complain against the detenu because of fear of retaliation and when certain residents of the area were taken into confidence and were assured that their names would not be disclosed and they would not be summoned to give evidence in any court or any other forum and these witnesses then got their statements recorded. Taking into consideration bootlegging record and in-camera statements of the witnesses, the Detaining Authority arrived at a conclusion that a detenu is a habitual and dangerous bootlegger and his activities of bootlegging was reflecting ascending trend and in order to prevent the detenu from indulging into such activities and in order to curb the bootlegging activities, the Detaining Authority was satisfied that it necessary to detain Shri Ganesh Narayan Mane. The detenu was supplied with the material on which the Detaining Authority had formed the subjective satisfaction and detenu was made aware of the Constitutional safeguards available to him as a detenu and he was also made aware of his right to make representation to the Detaining Authority and to the State Government. The detenu was also informed that the State Government would make a reference to the Advisory Board and it was open to the detenu to make any representation before the Advisory Board against the order of detention and he can avail the right of being heard in person by the Advisory Board and he would be accordingly intimated of the date of such hearing.

(3.) It is this order of detention which is a subject matter of the present writ petition. The impugned order of detention dated 08.09.2017 is challenged by the detenu on several grounds but the grounds on which more emphasis is laid are as under:-