The detention of the sand smuggler was justified as his activities affected public order, leading to scarcity of drinking and agricultural water, monetary loss to farmers, and fear and terror in the community.

V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.

1. By means of this writ petition filed by the friend of the detenu, the detention order passed by respondent No.2 District Magistrate, Jalgaon, under 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 is being challenged. Respondent No.2 by the detention order dated 16.3.2016 ordered the detention of the detenu Nilesh Dnyaneshwar Desale to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintainance of public order.

2. From the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu, it is apparent that the detention order is based on 4 C.Rs and two incamera statements. The 4 CRs are C.R. Nos.166 of 2010, 134 of 2015, 135 of 2015 and 21 of 2016. All the 4 CRs are of Bhadgaon police station in Jalgaon. C.R. No.166 of 2010 is under sections 353, 379, 504, 506 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. C.R. No.134 of 2015 is under sections 395, 325, 326, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 448, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. C.R. No.135 of 2015 is under section 379 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and C.R. No.21 of 2016 is under sections 379, 420 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. All 4 CRs pertain to theft of sand. The incidents relating to the two in-camera witnesses relate to threat and assault in relation to theft of sand by the detenu. Hence, the detenu has been detained as he is a Sand Smuggler and his activities are prejudicial to public order as envisaged under section 2 (a) subsection (iv-a) of the Act. Sub-section (iv-a) of section 2 (a) reads as under:

“(iv-a) in the case of a sand smuggler, when he is engaged, or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as a sand smuggler, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order;”

3. The first ground raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is in ground 4(i). In short, in relation to this ground, it is contended that the detention order is issued on 16.3.2016 whereas on the same day, i.e., on 16.3.2016 at 1.20pm and 1.25pm, the Detaining Authority has put endorsement about the truthfulness of the in-camera statements. This means that the detention order and the grounds of detention were prepared thereafter and detention order and grounds of detention alongwith accompanying documents were served on the detenu on 16.3.2016 at about 9.10pm. Hence, it is submitted that there was not sufficient time for the Detaining Authority to properly apply its mind to the facts of this case and to issue the order of detention. It is further submitted that the time period is so short that on account of paucity of time, there could not have been proper application of mind by the Detaining Authority, hence, on the ground of non-application of mind, the detention order is vitiated.

4. In addition, on going through the affidavit filed by the Detaining Authority, Mrs. Ansari submitted that the affidavit clearly shows that the proposal is dated 15.3.2016. The set of documents which was served on the detenu consists of 11 documents running into 187 pages. Hence, in such a short time, it was not possible for the Detaining Authority to properly apply its mind and to issue an order of detention.

5. Mrs. Ansari has relied on two decisions wherein she stated that in similar circumstances on account of paucity of time on the ground of non-application of mind the detention order was quashed. The first decision is dated 20.12.1985 of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Umesh Chandra Verma vs. Union of India and anr [Criminal Appeal No.878 of 1985 arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.3376/85]. In the said case, the detenu was intercepted on the morning of 12.6.1985 and a large quantity of contraband gold was recovered from him. He was interrogated the entire day on 13.6.1985. Thereafter at 6pm, he was formally arrested. The same night, the detention order was