Point of Law: Detention order confirmed - Habitually indulged in manufacture, transportation and sale of illicit liquor - Acts and conduct attributed to petitioner were prejudicial to maintenance of public order on both harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among general public, and grave danger to public health.

JUDGMENT :

N.J. JAMADAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, heard finally.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order of detention, dated 23rd March 2021 passed against the petitioner by the Commissioner of Police, Solapur-respondent No. 1 under the provision of section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous persons and video pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short ‘MPDA Act’).

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts leading to this petition can be stated as under:-

(a) A proposal was initiated to detain the petitioner by invoking the provisions contained in section 3(2) of the MPDA Act alleging, inter-alia, that the petitioner was a habitual bootleger in the areas falling within the jurisdiction of Jailroad Police Station, Solapur. The petitioner habitually indulged in manufacture, transportation and sale of illicit liquor in contravention of the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. A number of illicit liquor dens were operated by the petitioner. The Detaining Authority noted that numerous offences were registered against the petitioner at Jailroad Police Station, Solapur from the year 2018 to 2021. A proceeding under section 93 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act 1949’) was also initiated against the petitioner but to no avail.

(b) The petitioner had again indulged in the acts in contravention of the provisions of the Act, 1949. Six cases were registered thereunder from 19th July 2020 to 30th September 2020. Investigation revealed that the petitioner had supplied and distributed the illicit liquor which came to be seized in those crimes.

(c) The chemical analyst reported that the samples collected during the course of raids contained ethyl alcohol in water. Opinion was solicited from the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Dr. V.M. Government Medical College, Solapur. It was opined that consumption of ethyl alcohol in excessive amount is harmful to human body and causes death.

(d) In view of the activities of the petitioner, the people were not willing to come forward to lodge report and give evidence for the fear of reprisal. Statements of two witnesses were recorded in-camera. The bootlegging activity of the petitioner coupled with the violent acts resulted in disturbance of the public order.

(e) Thus, the Detaining Authority, upon recording satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the petitioner to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, passed the impugned order dated 23rd March 2021.

(f) The petitioner has assailed the impugned order by taking multiple grounds including the non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority and absence of material to indicate that the bootlegging activity, even if taken at its face value, was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

4. Affidavits in reply are fled by the respondent No. 1 and on behalf of respondent No. 2-State.

5. We have heard Ms. Tripathi, the leaned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Yagnik, the learned APP for the respondents. We have also perused the original record made available by the learned APP.

6. Ms. Tripathi restricted the challenge to three grounds:

(i) There is no material to brand the petitioner as a bootlegger. Since the petitioner was not found in possession of illicit liquor, in any of the crimes registered against him, and taken into account by the Detaining Authority, the satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority that the petitioner is a bootlegger, within the meaning of section 2(b) of the MPDA Act, is completely vitiated.

(ii) None of the acts and conduct attributed to th