Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 760
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
T.V. Nalawade, M.G. Sewlikar, JJ.
Baliram - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 539 of 2020
Decided On : 03-08-2020
P.P. More, Advocate, S.J. Salgare, Advocate
The main legal point established is the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order', and the interpretation of the MPDA Act provisions in relation to the detention of individuals engaged in activities prejudicial to public order.
Headnote:
Sand Smuggler - Detention under MPDA Act - Section 379, 511, 34, 327, 307, 143, 148, 21, 142, 55 of various Acts - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged his detention 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 (MPDA Act). The detenu was alleged to be a sand smuggler and a dangerous person based on multiple criminal offenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detenu's activities as a sand smuggler and a dangerous person were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and the detention order was in compliance with the provisions of the MPDA Act.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the detention order, the definition of 'sand smuggler' under the MPDA Act, and whether the detenu's activities disturbed public order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order', and held that the detenu's activities affected public order. The court also highlighted the provisions of the MPDA Act, including the definition of 'dangerous person' and 'sand smuggler', and the requirements for detention and communication of grounds for detention.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the legality of the detention order and the detenu's activities as a sand smuggler and a dangerous person.
JUDGMENT
M. G. Sewlikar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
3. This writ petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the detention of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') 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 (hereinafter referred to as 'MPDA Act').
4. Facts giving rise to this petition are as under :-
The District Collector, Beed (Respondent No. 2 herein) by the order dated 10.03.2020 directed detention of the petitioner under the MPDA Act alleging that the detenu is a Sand Smuggler and a dangerous person. The order dated 10.03.2020 states that the detenu has committed offences viz.
1) Under Section 379, 511 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide C.R.No. 7/2018 registered with Talwada Police Station, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed,
2) Under Section 327, 307, 143, 148 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 2 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide C.R. No. 6/2019 registered with Talwada Police Station, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed.
3) Under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 vide C.R. No. 123/2019 registered with Talwada Police Station, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed.
4) Under Section 142 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, vide C.R. No. 216/2019 registered with Talwada Police Station, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed.
5) Under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code vide C.R. No. 2/2020 registered with Talwada Police Station, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed
6) Chapter Case No. 9/2019 under Section 55 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, whereby the detenu has been externed.
5. The said order also states that the in-camera statements of the witnesses A and B show that the detenu has created terror in the society and has caused disturbance of public order and, therefore, the respondent No. 2 Detaining Authority recorded its subjective satisfaction that the detenu, being a dangerous person and a sand smuggler, has caused disturbance to public order. Witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the detenu and, therefore, the Detaining Authority respondent No. 2 directed the detenu to be detained in prison. Accordingly, the detention order dated 10.03.2020 was passed, which was served on the detenu on 12.03.2020. The information about his detention and place of detention was given to the mother of the detenu, Kushawarta w/o Namdeo Bedke. On 16.03.2020, papers were sent to the State Government respondent No. 1, for approval. The approval was received on 18.03.2020 and the detention order was confirmed by the Advisory Board. Accordingly, the detenu has filed this petition challenging the order of his detention.
6. Heard Shri More, learned counsel for the petitioner-detenu and Shri Salgare, learned APP for the State. Learned counsel Shri More argued that there is no time stipulation in the order dated 10.03.2020 passed by respondent No. 2, which is against the provisions of law. He further submitted that the MPDA Act provides for detention for a period of six months however, the impugned order shows that the detenu was detained for a period of twelve months, which is against the law. The crimes registered against the detenu are bogus. The detenu is not a dangerous person so as to attract the provisions of MPDA Act. There was no subjective satisfaction on the part of the respondent No. 2 and, therefore, the proceedings stand vitiated on this ground alone. He further submitted that the in camera statements of witnesses A and B are similar in nature and the allegations therein are vague. Therefore, on the basis of such allegations, it cannot be said that the detenu has engaged in activities of a sand smuggler or that he is a dangerous p
