The court clarified the legal provisions under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981, and emphasized the validity of the detention order under section 3(2) and 5(a) of the Act.

JUDGMENT: (PER SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.)

1. The petitioner is detained by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai under the order of detention dated 2.5.2006 issued under the provisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 ("the said Act" for short) with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order of detention, grounds of detention and the material in support thereof were served on the petitioner on 10.7.2006. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the said order of detention.

2. The order of detention is based on two cases being C.R.No.161/2006 registered under sections 452, 427, 504, 506, 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and C.R. No.169/2006 under sections 353, 506(2), 504 of Indian Penal Code registered at Goregaon police station and two in-camera statements of witnesses "A" and "B". On the basis of this material the detaining authority was satisfied that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detaining authority was further satisfied that the petitioner has created a reign of terror in the concerned localities and in view of his tendencies and inclination reflected in the offences committed by him it was necessary to detain him under the said Act.

3. We have heard at considerable length Mr.Kotwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr.Kotwal submitted that in the affidavit filed by the detaining authority, the detaining authority has stated that in the past punitive action was taken against the petitioner, however, the said action was not sufficient to curb his activities and, therefore, it was necessary to preventively detain him. Mr.Kotwal contended that this averment made in the affidavit shows utter non application of mind on the part of detaining authority. Mr.Kotwal submitted that in the grounds of detention there is reference to only two cases registered against the petitioner. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner was convicted in any case. Mr.Kotwal drew out attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Haradhan Saha Vs. The State of West Bengal and Others 1975 (3) Supreme Court Cases 198 and submitted that there is a difference between punitive action and preventive detention. He submitted that in punitive action a person is punished whereas in preventive detention he is prevented from indulging in prejudicial activities. The learned counsel contended that in the cases to which reference is made in grounds of detention the petitioner is not convicted. He submitted that mere intention to get the petitioner convicted is not enough. He pointed out that witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ refer to incidents which allegedly took place prior to the incidents in connection with which cases are registered against the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that assertion made in the affidavit that punitive action was taken against the petitioner and that was not sufficient to curb his activities is baseless. The learned counsel urged that non application of mind exhibited by the detaining authority in the affidavit has rendered the detention order illegal. In support of this submission Mr.Kotwal also relied on the unreported judgment of this Court in Jiteshkumar @ Jitesh @ Tony ors Ghanshyam Ghug Vs. The Commissioner of Police & ors. delievered on 8-3-2007 in Criminal writ petition no. 1480 of 2006.

4. Mr.Mhaispurkar, learned A.P.P. on the other hand submitted that the word "punitive" action is used in common parlance. He submitted that if the averments on which reliance is placed by Mr.Kotwal are read in the context of the other averments made in the affidavit it will be clear that there is no non application of mind.

5. The averment about which grievance is made reads thus:

"It is stated tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document