Back
2007 Supreme(Bom) 998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & SMT.R.S. DALVI, JJ.
Amirul @ Hamirul Haresh Shaikh —Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner of Police, Mumbai — Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO.2115 OF 2006
Decided on : 20TH JULY,2007
Advocates appeared :
Mr. noop Pandey i/b. Mr. S. Manjula Roa for the Petitioner.
Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar, A.P.P. for the Respondents.
Headnote:Preventive Detention - Delay in issue of order in respect of incidents referred to-Validity of detention-Challenge of.-It appears that after recording the last statement of witness on 13th June, 2006, the proposal was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-IX on 23rd June, 2006 and thereafter the papers were sent to Senior Inspector of Police, PCB, CID, who has given his endorsement on 26th June, 2006. The 24th June, 2006 and 25th June, 2006 were holidays. Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Preventive) given his endorsement on 28th June, 2006 and the papers were forwarded to the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime), who has given his endorsement on 29th June, 2006 Thereafter, the proposal and papers of the present detenue were perused by the Commissioner and they were forwarded to the Office of the Senior Police Inspector CID for the purpose of translation in Hindi language, which language is known to the detenue and in all the record contains 603 pages. All the records were checked and appropriate endorsements were made by the Senior Inspector of Police, PCB, CID, Mumbai on 17th July, 2006 and thereafter the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Preventive) went through all the papers and put his endorsement on 18th July, 2006 and the papers were forwarded to the Commissioner of Police and the order of detention came to be issued on 21st July, 2006.
The Commissioner of Police has stated that in the above, all steps were taken promptly and the live link had not snapped.
Preventive Detention - Detention order-No interference with.-It is very clear that the petitioner has been repeatedly indulging in dangerous activities which clearly show that there is a violation of public order and propensity is very much continuing and the live link had not snapped by the time the detention order was passed and even so called delay has been properly explained. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground made out for interference in the said impugned detention order.
Preventive Detention - Purpose of detention-To prevent the petitioner from disturbing maintenance of public order.-It is clear that one criminal case has been filed against the petitioner, as well as the statements of three witnesses very clearly bring out that the dangerous activities of the petitioner would squarely amount to interference of the maintenance of the public order especially in view of the definitions as provided in the said Act. The incidents referred to therein are not of a minor nature. The entire area of Khardanda appears to have been affected by the repeated activities of the petitioner and the whole purpose of the detention is to prevent the petitioner from disturbing maintenance of the public order in the said area.
Preventive Detention - Purpose of detention - To prevent the petitioner from disturbing maintenance of public order. - It is clear that one criminal case has been filed against the petitioner, as well as the statements of three witnesses very clearly bring out that the dangerous activities of the petitioner would squarely amount to interference of the maintenance of the public order especially in view of the definitions as provided in the said Act. The incidents referred to therein are not of a minor nature. The entire area of Khardanda appears to have been affected by the repeated activities of the petitioner and the whole purpose of the detention is to prevent the petitioner from disturbing maintenance of the public order in the said area.
1. By this Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the detention order dated 21st July, 2006 passed under "The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons Act,1981 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) by the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. Pursuant to the said detention order, the Petitioner was arrested on 25th July,2006 and he is in custody.
2. The Petitioner has been detained under the said Act on the ground that he is a Slumlord and that his activity is causing prejudice to the maintenance of public order. Section 2(a) of the said Act defines, "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" means-
(i) in the case of a slumlord, when he is engaged, or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as a slumlord, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order;
Similarly Section 2(f) of the said Act defines;
(f) "slumlord" means a person, who illegally takes possession of any lands (whether belonging to Government, local authority or any other person) or enters into or creates illegal tenancies or leave and licence agreements or any other agreements in respect of such lands, or who constructs unauthorised structures thereon for sale or hire, or gives such lands to any persons on rental or leave and licence basis for construction, or use and occupation, of unauthorised structures, or who knowingly gives financial aid to any persons for taking illegal possession of such lands, or for construction of unauthorised structures thereon, or who collects or attempts to collect from any occupiers of such lands rent, compensation or other charges by criminal intimidation, or who evicts or attempts to evict any such occupiers by force without resorting to the lawful procedure, or who abets in any manner the doing of any of the abovementioned things; . It also defines "unauthorised structure"
(g) "unauthorised structure" means any structure constructed, without express permission in writing of the Municipal Commissioner in a Municipal Corporation area, and elsewhere of the Collector, or except in accordance with any law for the time being in force in the area concerned.
3. The brief facts of the case are, that one Jagdish Chaugule, who was a recovery Clerk in Deputy Collectors (Encroachment and Removal) found the Petitioner to be carrying out number of illegal construction and one of them was a ground floor plus two floors structure on Government land at Adarsha Band Pathak Mandal, Near Balwadi, Madhlapada, Khardanda, Khar (W), Mumbai. Mr. Chaughule had informed the said fact to his office, thereupon notice was issued calling upon the Petitioner and his associates to produce documents justifying the legality of the structure, and as the Petitioner could not satisfy the Authorities with the relevant documents, the structures were demolished by the Deputy Collectors’ Office on 9th November, 2005, 24th November,2005 and 9th December,2005, however, again the said structures were re-errected. In view thereof, Mr. Chaugule had filed a complaint under the Maharashtra Slum (Improvement, clearance and redevelopment) Act, 1971 with Khar Police Station against the Petitioner and his associates on 17th February, 2006. In that behalf, the Police had also recorded statements of 16 persons, who clearly indicated the illegal activities carried out by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was arrested on 20th March, 2006, in pursuance of the aforesaid case. Thereafter, the Petitioner was granted bail on 24th March, 2006.
4. Over and above, on inquiries made in that area it was found that the Petitioner along with his associates were creating a reign of terror and were constructing illegal constructions on demanding money from various persons to allow them to occupy and indiscriminately throw them out. Various witnesses were not willing to make any complaint and after a l
