Under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug-offenders Act, 1981, detention of a bootlegger is only justified if their activities adversely affect or are likely to adversely affect the maintenance of public order.

Headnote:
MAHARASHTRA PREVENTION OF DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES OF SLUMLORDS, BOOTLEGGERS AND DRUG-OFFENDERS ACT, 1981 - SECTION 2(A), 2(B), 3(1) - DETENTION - BOOTLEGGER - PUBLIC ORDER - RELEVANT FACTORS.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged an order of detention issued under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug-offenders Act, 1981 (the Act), contending that the Detaining Authority considered irrelevant factors in forming the subjective satisfaction necessary for detention.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Detaining Authority erred in considering the petitioner's status as a bootlegger, as defined under the Act, as sufficient to establish that his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The court found that the Detaining Authority failed to distinguish between the facts establishing the petitioner as a bootlegger and those necessary to establish that his activities were prejudicial to public order.
Issues: Whether the Detaining Authority erred in considering irrelevant factors in forming the subjective satisfaction necessary for detention under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that merely being a bootlegger, without engaging in activities that adversely affect public order, cannot justify detention under the Act. The subjective satisfaction required under section 3(1) of the Act must be based on a consideration of the bootlegger's activities that have a bearing on the maintenance of public order.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the detention order, and ordered the petitioner's release.

JUDGMENT - R.A. JAHAGIRDAR, J.:---An order of detention dated 18th August, 1985 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Thane, in exercise of powers under section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug-offenders Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in relation to the petitioner is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Along with the order of detention, the grounds of detention formulated in Marathi were supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the said detention order by contending, among other things, that the Detaining Authority has taken into consideration irrelevant factors which would not justify the subjective satisfaction at which the Detaining Authority has arrived.

2. Before proceeding to consider the challenge of the petitioner to the order of detention, it would be advantageous to notice briefly the provisions of the said Act. Section 2(b) defines a bootlegger. A bootlegger means a person who indulges in, among others things, the manufacturing, storing, transporting and selling of any liquor in contravention of any provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, and the Rules and orders made thereunder and also a person who does any of the said things by or through any other person or who does any of the said things by or through any other person or who abets in any other manner the doing of any such thing. It is, therefore, clear that if a person is found on material collected by the authorities that he is indulging in bootlegging either by himself or through any other person, he would be a bootlegger within the meaning of Clause (b) of section 2 of the said Act.

3. But it is not enough for a person to be detained under the said Act to be a bootlegger. This Act which is a raw relating to preventive detention has been enacted for the purpose of maintenance of public order, only a person who acts or is likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order can detained under the said Act. That is why it has been mentioned in section 2(a) that "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order' means, in the case of a bootlegger, when he engaged, or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as a bootlegger, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order. Therefore, it is only when any of the activities of a bootlegger affect or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order and the authority under section 3 is satisfied that it is necessary to prevent him from acting in such manner that an order of detention can be passed under section 3 of the Act.

4. In the instant case, the grounds of detention after the opening paragraph have been mentioned in paragraph 2 sub-clauses (a) to (g). Clauses (a) to (f) mention instances where the petitioner has through some other persons been carrying on bootlegging business as mentioned in the Act. We are proceeding on the basis that for each one of these instances mentioned there is a material on record and it has not been demonstrated by Mr. Chitnis appearing before us in support of this petition that the facts mentioned in Clauses (a) to (f) of paragraph 2 are not supportable by the material on record. All these instances mentioned in Clauses (a) to (f) in paragraph 2, therefore, sufficiently establish the fact that the petitioner is a bootlegger.

5. However, in Clause (g) of the same paragraph, it has been mentioned that an application dated 30th June, 1985 was received by the Police Inspector of Kalyan in which several activities of the petitioner which were likely to effect or affected the maintenance of the public order were mentioned. There such activities have been specifically detailed in Clause (g) of paragraph 2 and it was apparently the intention of the Detaining Authority that these activities mentioned in Clause (g) of paragraph 2 were such as to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document