1. Detention order under MPDA Act to prevent bootlegging based on illicit liquor manufacture cases and witness statements. (Para 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1178
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K. V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Arjun S/O Ratan Gaikwad – Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra And Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 5204 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12516 of 2024)
Decided On : 11-12-2024
Important Points
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of public order disturbance; mere allegations without substantiation do not justify such measures.
Subject
Criminal Law - Preventive Detention
Act Referred
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: S.3(2)
Headnote
(A) 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 - Section 3(2) - Detention order challenged on grounds of lack of nexus with alleged activities and absence of public order threat - Court held that activities did not affect public order, quashing the detention order. (Paras 6, 19, 20)
(B) Public Order vs. Law and Order - Distinction clarified; mere disturbances do not equate to public disorder - Activities must impact broader community to justify preventive detention. (Paras 12, 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was detained under the MPDA Act based on six cases of illicit liquor manufacture, with claims of public order threat deemed unsubstantiated by the court.
Findings of Court:
The court found no substantial evidence that the appellant's activities posed a threat to public order, leading to the quashing of the detention order.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's activities constituted a threat to public order or could be managed under ordinary law enforcement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that preventive detention requires clear evidence of public order disturbance, which was lacking in this case.
Result: Appeal allowed; detention order quashed.
(B) Public Order vs. Law and Order - Distinction clarified; mere disturbances do not equate to public disorder - Activities must impact broader community to justify preventive detention. (Paras 12, 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was detained under the MPDA Act based on six cases of illicit liquor manufacture, with claims of public order threat deemed unsubstantiated by the court.
Findings of Court:
The court found no substantial evidence that the appellant's activities posed a threat to public order, leading to the quashing of the detention order.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's activities constituted a threat to public order or could be managed under ordinary law enforcement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that preventive detention requires clear evidence of public order disturbance, which was lacking in this case.
Result: Appeal allowed; detention order quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Savadikar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Savadikar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Analysis of the distinction between public order and law and order, finding that illicit liquor sales and individual threats did not disturb the community's general tranquillity. (Para 6 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
3. Preventive detention is impermissible unless the proposed detainee's acts tend to disturb public order, affecting the community at large, rather than merely breaching law and order. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and detention orders quashed; appellant directed to be released. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 )
5. What is the legal distinction between public order and law and order?
Public order involves disturbances that affect the community or public at large, disrupting the even tempo of life. Law and order involves smaller-scale disturbances or breaches of peace that do not necessarily lead to public disorder. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
6. When is the use of preventive detention legally permissible?
Preventive detention, being a harsh measure, is permissible only when the acts of the proposed detainee have a tendency to disturb public order, rather than being matters that can be dealt with by ordinary law and order machinery. (Para 13 , 14 )
7. Do individual threats or illicit liquor sales necessarily constitute a threat to public order?
Not necessarily. If activities like illicit liquor sales do not disturb the general tranquillity of the society or create terror in the public at large, they are treated as law and order issues rather than threats to public order. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is taken up for hearing.
3. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 20th August 2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition No. 698 of 2024, thereby dismissing the petition filed by the appellant herein.
4. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal are as under:
4.1 The District Magistrate, Parbhani passed an order under Section 3(2) of the 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 referred to as ‘MPDA Act’) and thereby detaining the appellant for a period of twelve months, so as to prevent him from indulging in the activities of bootlegging thereby preventing the maintenance of peace.
4.2 The detaining authority had basically relied on the six cases registered against the appellant by the State Excise Department. The grounds of detention were communicated to the appellant on 5th March 2024. The detention order was approved on 14th March 2024 by the Home Department and the confirmation order was passed on 8th May 2024 by the Government of Maharashtra. Several grounds were raised in the petition including the ground that there was no nexus with the alleged activities of the appellant and the order of the detention, inasmuch as there was a gap of about two and a half months between the proposal for detention being forwarded to the detaining authority and the detention order being passed. It is also submitted that the authority had acted in a mechanical manner and without there being any material, had passed the detention order. It was submitted that in any case, the alleged activities do not constitute a threat to the public order and they would fall amongst cases which can be dealt with by ordinary law and order machinery.
5. We have heard Shri Nachiketa Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Siddharth Dharmadhikari, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Maharashtra.
6. Though, arguments have been advanced on various issues and a number of authorities have been cited, we find that the appeal deserves to be allowed on a short ground, inasmuch as none of the activities which form the basis of the detention order can be said to be affecting public order.
7. The basis on which the proposal for detention is passed is the following six cases which are registered by the Authority against the appellant:-
| Sr. No. | Office with whom offence registered | Crime No., Date and Section | Charge sheet and Date | Remark |
| 1 | Sub-Inspector, State Excise, Pathhari | 20/2023 dt. 29/1/2023 Maharashtra Prohibition Act Sec. 65(e) | SCC No.211/2023 dt. 25.3.2023 | Subjudice |
| 2 | Inspector, State Excise, Parbhani | 61/2023 dt. 18/3/2023 Maharashtra Prohibition Act Sec. 65(e) | SCC No.335/2023 dt. 23.8.2023 | Subjudice |
| 3. | Inspector, State Excise, Parbhani | 89/2023 dt. 24/4/2023 Maharashtra Prohibition Act Sec. 65(e) | SCC No.338/2023 dt. 23.8.2023 | Subjudice |
| 4. | Inspector, State Excise, Parbhani | 126/2023 dt. 17/05/2023 Maharashtra Prohibition Act Sec. 65(d)(e) | SCC No.358/2023 dt. 04.09.2023 | Subjudice |
| 5. | Inspector, State Excise, Parbhani | 253/2023 dt. 09/09/2023 Maharashtra Prohibition Act Sec. 65(e)(f) | SCC No.419/2023 dt. 20.9.2023 | Subjudice |
| 6. | Inspector, State Excise, Parbhani | 327/2023 dt. 18/10/2023 Maharashtra Prohibition Act Sec. 65(e)(f) | On investigation |
8. Apart from that the detaining authority has also relied on the statements of two witnesses, who have not been named.
9. Insofar as all the six cases are concerned, they are pertaining to the illicit manufacture of handmade liquor. It is to be noted that these cases are register
