Back
1999 Supreme(Bom) 805
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
J.N. Patel S.G. Mahajan, JJ.
Shri Anil s/o. Damodhar Paunipagar..... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra others..... Respondents.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 209 of 1999, decided on 21-10-1999.
Advocates appeared :
S.A. Jaiswal, for petitioner.
Mrs. Wandile, A.P.P., for respondent.
The Detaining Authority must apply its mind and consider only relevant material in arriving at a decision to detain a person under the MPDA Act of 1981.
Headnote:
MPDA ACT - SECTION 3(1), 3(2) - DETENTION ORDER - APPLICATION OF MIND - IRRELEVANT MATERIAL - CONSIDERATION OF OLD CASES - QUASHING OF DETENTION ORDER.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (MPDA Act of 1981) on the ground of non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Detaining Authority had taken into consideration extraneous material, including old cases and previous detention orders, which were not relevant to the determination of whether the petitioner was a dangerous person as defined under the MPDA Act of 1981. The Court also found that the Detaining Authority had failed to examine the progress and disposal of the old cases and the result of the previous detention orders, which could have affected its subjective satisfaction in arriving at the decision to detain the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the Detaining Authority had applied its mind in passing the detention order? 2. Whether the Detaining Authority had considered irrelevant material in arriving at its decision? 3. Whether the Detaining Authority had failed to examine the progress and disposal of the old cases and the result of the previous detention orders?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Detaining Authority had not applied its mind in passing the detention order, as it had taken into consideration extraneous material and failed to examine the progress and disposal of the old cases and the result of the previous detention orders. The Court further held that the consideration of irrelevant material and the failure to examine the relevant material vitiated the detention order.
Final Decision: The Court quashed and set aside the detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the MPDA Act of 1981.
2. On 16-4-1999 Shri Ulhas Joshi, the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City passed an order that the petitioner be detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (Amendment of 1996) (Mah. LV of 1981), for short "MPDA Act of 1981" in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention order came to be passed by the Commissioner of Police in exercise of powers conferred on him under sub-section (1) of section 3 of MPDA Act of 1981 read with Government Order, Home Department (Spl.) No. DOS. 1399/4/-SPL-3 (B), dated 3rd February, 1999.
3. The Detaining Authority in the grounds of detention dated 16-4-1999 communicated to the petitioner found that the petitioner was a dangerous person defined under the provisions of MPDA Act of 1981 on the basis of 14 cases committed by the petitioner since the year 1989 in the jurisdiction of Sitabuldi and Sadar Police Stations. The Detaining Authority found that inspite of the arrest of the petitioner and various prosecutions launched against him in the said cases along with the three detentions under the National Security Act, 1980, the petitioner's criminal activities have increased blatantly without any remorse and he has no respect for law and that he restarts his violent criminal activities with renewed vigour once the petitioner is released from custody or from detention, thereby creating terror and a sense of insecurity in the minds of the people of the locality where the petitioner resides and operates.
4. The Detaining Authority found that the recent activities of the petitioner are such that his detention under the MPDA Act of 1981 was in the interest of the society as the petitioner was found acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention relied upon by the Detaining Authority are the offences committed by the petitioner in the jurisdiction of Sitabuldi Police Station under section 392 read with 34 Indian Penal Code registered vide Crime No. 61/99 on the complaint of Shri Ram S/o Satyanarayan Sharma who is running Ankur Wine Shop at Dharampeth, Nagpur.
The facts of the case are that on 21-2-1999 at about 22.00 hrs. when the complainant closed his shop and collected that day's earning of Rs. 23,000/- into a polythene carry bag, kept it into the dicky of his scooter and was going towards Madhushala Bar near Jagat Restaurant to meet his brother Ravi Sharma who is running Madhushala Bar, and while he was going towards Buldi via Amravati Road, at that time near Hislop College Hockey ground at 22.30 hours, the petitioner and his two associates suddenly came before the complainant from behind on scooter and tried to stop him. Due to fear, the complainant drove his scooter fast but was accosted near Mafco Daily Needs Corner, Maharajbagh Canal Road. The petitioner and his associates got down from the scooter and asked the complainant to open the dicky and take out the money by whipping out knives. Out of fear, when the complainant opened the dicky, the petitioner snatched the carry bag containing money and threatened him. "Tum Dukan se Nikle Aur Paise Dicky Me Rakhe, Tabse Ham Tumahra Picha Karta Aye." He was further threatened, "Mai Tumhe Do tin Mahine Se 3000/- Rs. Pratimah Dene Ka Bola Tha. Tumne Diya Nahi. Abhi 1 Tarikh Se 5 Tarikh Tak Her Mahine 3000/- Rs. Meri Lottery Ke Dukan me Jama Karna" and left the spot on their scooter. Out of fear, the complainant did not report the matter to the Police Station immediately because of apprehension of grave danger to his life, but after gathering courage complainant reported the matter to Sitabuldi Police Station on 29-1-1999. The Sitabuldi Police Station was able to a
