Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Ravindra V Ghuge, B.U. Debadwar, JJ.
Chandrakala - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 16 of 2021
Decided On : 26-04-2021
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION - DETENTION - 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 - SECTION 3(1) AND 3(2) - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - RATIO DECIDENDI - FINAL DECISION:
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the detention order passed by the District Collector under the provisions of 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 petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed on an assumption which is not sustainable. The petitioner was sent behind bars and was granted the liberty to make a representation against the order of detention under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, before the Advisory Board. The petitioner submitted that she does not desire to make such representation and prayed that this Court may consider this petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner is a bootlegger. She has indulged in manufacturing and selling illicit liquor, which is commonly known as "Hatbhatti", in thickly populated areas at Kadim, Jalna, comprising of poverty stricken people. Her drunken customers used to litter the streets by their various acts including vomiting on the streets and creating an unhygienic atmosphere in Kadim, Jalna area. As a result of her illicit liquor business, the peace loving residents, students and especially women and girls in the said locality, used to always live under constant fear and terror. Many a times, they used to be abused, insulted and would be object of teasing which is very insulting. The petitioner protected her illicit liquor business by abusing and threatening the objecting residents. The Court also found that the petitioner had executed a good conduct bond which was flouted thereafter. Scant respect was shown by the petitioner to the said bond executed by her.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned detention order was passed on an assumption which is not sustainable? 2. Whether the petitioner is a bootlegger who has indulged in manufacturing and selling illicit liquor? 3. Whether the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order? 4. Whether the petitioner had executed a good conduct bond which was flouted thereafter?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned detention order was not passed on an assumption which is not sustainable. The Court found that the petitioner is a bootlegger who has indulged in manufacturing and selling illicit liquor. The Court also found that the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Court further found that the petitioner had executed a good conduct bond which was flouted thereafter. 2. The Court relied on the following precedents: (i) Kanuji S. Zala vs. The State of Gujarat, (1999) AIR SC 2269 (ii) Magar Pansingh Pimple vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) AllMR(Cri) 491 (iii) Priyanka Fulore v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 9 SCC 714 (iv) T. Devaki v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, (1990) CriLJ 1140 (v) Harpreet Kaur Harvinder Singh Bedi v. State of Maharashtra & another, (1992) AIR SC 979 (vi) Ramesh Ghanekar v. R.D. Tyagi, (1986) 2 BCR 537 (vii) Jaspalsingh Jagatsingh Vig vs. J.F. Rebeiro,1985 MhLJ 927 (viii) Smt.Shubhangi Tukaram Sawant vs. Shri R.H. Mendonca and others, (2001) AllMR(Cri) 68 (ix) Vinod Vithal Rane vs. R.H. Mendonca, (2001) 2 MhLJ 437 (x) Ramesh Balu Chavan vs. The Commissioner of Police and another, (2017) AllMR(Cri) 3683
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition and held that the petitioner has not made out any ground for quashing the impugned detention order.
JUDGMENT
Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.12.2020 passed by respondent No.2, vide which, she has been detained under the provisions of 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 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the MPDA Act, 1981").
3. The petitioner has put forth prayer clauses B and C as under :-
"B) By issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction in the nature of writ, kindly quash and set aside and/or revoke the impugned order dated 07.12.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 and consequently the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to release the petitioner."
"C) By allowing this Criminal Writ Petition, may kindly be released the petitioner on bail in pursuance of the above mentioned order dated 07.12.2020 passed by the respondent No.2."
4. The petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed on an assumption which is not sustainable. Respondent No.2/ District Collector, Jalna initiated the proceedings under Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the MPDA Act, 1981. It is contended in the petition that the petitioner was sent behind bars and was granted the liberty to make a representation against the order of detention under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, before the Advisory Board.
5. The learned advocate for the petitioner makes a statement, on instructions, that the petitioner does not desire to make such representation and prays that this Court may consider this petition.
6. The petitioner contends that the impugned order is rendered illegal on the following grounds:-
(a) The petitioner is a law abiding and peace loving citizen of India, who has been falsely implicated.
(b) No specific period for detention has been set out in the impugned order.
(c) The impugned order was not passed within the time limit provided by the statute and hence, unsustainable in law.
(d) The statute provides that the preventive detention should not be for more than six months and respondent No.2 has not mentioned the period for which the impugned order would be operable.
(e) Several bogus crimes have been registered against the petitioner, only on the ground of suspicion.
(f) The petitioner is not a person whose presence in the society would be dangerous to the respectable members of the society.
(g) The activities of the petitioner cannot be held to be capable of disturbing public peace.
(h) In camera statements of anonymous complainants would not form sufficient material to justify the preventive detention of the petitioner.
(i) Respondent No.2 should be satisfied by the grounds available to conclude that the petitioner deserves to be detained as a preventive measure and such detention must be based on the subjective satisfaction of the concerned authority.
(j) After the decision to detain the petitioner is arrived at, respondent No.2 has to make a report to the Advisory Board within seven days and only on the confirmation of the Board, the impugned order can be implemented.
(k) False offences are registered against the petitioner under political pressure.
(l) Personal liberty of the petitioner cannot be taken away, which is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
(m) The petitioner is willing to file an affidavit that she shall never again indulge in manufacturing illicit liquor and the detention be restricted to the time already spent by the petitioner behind bars.
7. The learned prosecutor, while strenuously opposing this petition, relies upon the affidavit in reply filed by the District Magistrate, Jalna. It is stated in the said reply as under :-
(a) Since the detention has been effected
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
