Mansi Dikshit Bhagat vs The District Magistrate, Wardha And ... on 26 August, 2025

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Mansi Dikshit Bhagat vs The District Magistrate, Wardha And ... on 26 August, 2025

The order under Section 12 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 is to be passed by the State Government. The order placed on record, however, is passed by Section Officer.

2 cr. wp 309.2025+4 Since the matters pertain to liberty of person, we would like to go through the contents of order passed by the State Government.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor shall place on record at 2.30 p.m. the order passed by the State Government.

Kept back.

Steno copy be given to learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

               (M. M. NERLIKAR, J.)              (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)

Later on:

The learned A.P.P. submits that the Additional Chief Secretary has passed order under Section 12 the Maharashtra Prevention Of Dangerous Activities Of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons And Video Pirates Act, 1981 by making remark on the note-sheet.

02. Thus, the Additional Chief Secretary has instead of passing the order as required under Section 12 has made certain remarks on the note- sheet, which according to him, is sufficient compliance of Section 12 of the Act.

03. We will, in due course, comment upon the procedure so adopted by the Additional Chief Secretary in the matter of personal liberty of a person like the petitioners. We are, however, annoyed by non-compliance of our order of placing on record, the copy of order passed by the State Government, instead learned A.P.P. has made a statement that the order is passed in the form of remark in the note-sheet. He has no answer as to why the said note-sheet has been not placed on record. Thus, it appears that for some reasons known to the Additional Chief Secretary, the compliance of order is being avoided.

3 cr. wp 309.2025+4

04. The learned A.P.P. submits that the Officers at the Mantralaya are searching the files and, therefore, is unable to place before the Court the copy of note-sheet.

05. When enquired as to who has given instructions, the learned A.P.P. submits that the Desk Officer has given such instructions. It is surprising that the learned A.P.P. has taken instructions from the Desk Officer. We expected the instructions from the Chief Secretary or the Additional Chief Secretary, considering the scope of Section 12 of the Act. Further, what is apparent is that, the Desk Officer has given instructions without going through the file.

06. At this stage, the learned A.P.P. submits that he has received copy of order on WhatsApp. It pertains to the subject matter of Writ Petition No.435/2025. The order under Section 12 of the Act is/was passed on 13/05/2025. The order is said to be passed by the Additional Chief Secretary. The order is shown to us, which reads as under :

"After considering all the facts of the case, police report and opinion of the Advisory Board dated 02/05/2025, the detention order is confirmed and the detention of the detenue be continued for a period of 12 months from the date of detention."

07. The said order is signed by Mr. Ikbalsingh Chahal, Additional Chief Secretary. The order is as cryptic as it could be, wherein no reason is given as to why the papers referred to in the order would justify continuation of detention. Section 12 provides that the State Government may confirm the detention upon the report received from the Advisory Board indicating that there is sufficient cause for detention.

08. The Supreme Court in the case of Nenavath Bujji etc. vs. State of Telangana and Others - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 367 , while highlighting the 4 cr. wp 309.2025+4 role of Advisory Board, has also made a reference to Section 12 of the Act and observed that upon receiving the report from the Advisory Board showing sufficient cause warranting detention, the Government may confirm the detention, that is, it gives the appropriate Government the discretion to either confirm or revoke the order of detention. The Supreme Court has also commented upon the second part of Section 12 saying that where the report of the Advisory Board is against the detention, the same is binding on the Government and the detenue is required to be released forthwith.

09. Thus, what is required at the hands of the State Government is to apply mind to the opinion/report received from the Advisory Board. The State Government must be mindful to the situation that the compliance of Section 12 of the Act is of immense importance, because the order of confirmation of detention would certify that a person will continue to be behind bar without trial. In that sense, the order passed under Section 12 must disclose the application of mind as to the material placed before it.

10. If the order under question is examined on the touchstone of what has been noted above, we find that order is passed without application of mind. Nonetheless, since the learned A.P.P. has sought time to place on record, in the form of affidavit, the details of the consideration rendered by the State Government to the material placed before it, we grant one more opportunity to the respondent to justify to the order of detention, which are otherwise routinely passed on the note-sheets.

11. List this petition on 11th September, 2025.

12. All concerned to act on Steno Copy/Uploaded Copy of the order.

                                            (M.M. Nerlikar, J.)                  (Anil L. Pansare, J.)
                                 *sandesh




Signed by: Mr. Sandesh Waghmare
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 26/08/2025 19:32:54

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court