ABDUL MAJID ILAHIBUX KHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Order of Detention dated 14-10-1987 has been impugned in this Criminal Writ Petition by Abdul Majid Ilahibux Khan, hereinafter referred to as "the Detenu". The Order of Detention dated 14-10-1987 was passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, under the provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug offenders Act, 1981 (Act No. LV of 1981) (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act" ). The said Order of Detention was served on the Detenu on 20-10-1987 on the ground that the Detenu was a slumlord as defined under the said Act and that his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds on which the Order of Detention was based were served on the Detenu on 24-10-1987.

(2.) SHRI Rele, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Detenu, has submitted that in the instant case the grounds only established the fact that the Detenu was a slumlord as defined under Section 2 (f) of the said Act. There was nothing in the grounds to show that the activities of the Detenu as a slumlord were in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Shri Rele contended that under the provisions of the said Act, the Detaining Authority must show, firstly, that the Detenu was a slumlord or a bootlegger or a drug offender and thereafter proceed to show that the activities of that person were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Looked at from that point of view, argued Shri Rele, in the instant case, it could not be stated that the Detaining authority had established that the activities of the Detenu as a slumlord were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In this view of the matter, the order of Detention stood vitiated and the same ought to be struck down.

(3.) SHRI Barday, the learned Public Prosecutor, has contended that in the instant case the Detaining authority had relied on as many as five instances which showed, firstly, that the Detenu was a slumlord, and further that his activities had caused alarm, danger and a feeling of insecurity amongst the persons living in the locality, particularly those who were the tenants of the Detenu. Shri Barday pointed out that in as many as three instances it was shown that the Detenu had abused and given threats of assault to his tenants when they demanded refund of the amount which they had paid to the Detenu. These activities, according to Shri Barday, were grave enough to be termed as prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.