Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This ground has to be read together with ground (a) and

(b) which read as follows:-

(a) The Petitioner says and submits that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention mechanically in a very casual and cavalier manner without applying his judicious mind which is clear from the grounds urged in this Writ Petition. There is total non-application of mind of the detaining authority. The order of detention is illegal and bad in law, liable to be quashed and set aside.

This shows total non-application of mind of the Detaining Authority. The order of detention is illegal and bad in law, liable to be quashed and set aside.

4 The learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Tripathi has invited our attention to the grounds of detention as supplied to the petitioner. On perusal of the grounds of detention, which have been formulated in pursuance of Section 8 of the MPDA Act, 1981, the Detaining Authority has observed as under:-

5 The learned Counsel Mr. Tripathi would argue that the Detaining Authority has taken into consideration the offences registered against the detenu from 2012 till date. However, he would submit that the Detaining Authority has further relied upon the instance mentioned in paragraphs 4 (a), 4(b), 4 (c), 5 (a) and 5 (b) for passing the detention order. He would argue that paragraph 4 (a) (1) is crime registered at Vishnunagar Police Station vide C.R. No. II- 08/2017 under Section 48 (7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 with Section 15 of Environmental Code. According to the learned Counsel, the said C.R. is not the one which would fall within wp-4646-17.doc the ambit of sub-clause (b-1) of Section 2 of the MPDA Act, 1981, which defines "dangerous person" to mean a person, who either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of any of the offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code or any of the offences punishable under Chapter V of the Arms Act, 1959. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, reliance on this C.R. vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, specially when the Detaining Authority has based his subjective satisfaction on the basis of material produced before him and it had taken into consideration CR No. II-08/2017 along with another CR No. I-116/2017 and C.R. I-144/2017 registered under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and two in-camera statements. According to the learned Counsel, the copies of documents relating to CR No. II-08/2017 were placed before the Detaining Authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction and the said documents were relied upon and also supplied to the petitioner along with grounds of detention. According to Mr Tripathi, consideration of extraneous wp-4646-17.doc material reflects the non-application of mind of Detaining Authority. He would argue that as regards offence of smuggling of sand is concerned, the Act of 1981 deals with "sand smuggler" and the said Act authorizes the State Government to pass order in respect of any person with a view to prevent him to act in any manner prejudicial to the public order if a person is found to have engaged in the activity of smuggling of sand. However, the Detaining Authority has detained the petitioner being a "Dangerous person" and therefore he ought to have formed his subjective satisfaction only on the material which leads to the inference that the detenu is a "dangerous person". Mr. Tripathi has invited our attention to the documents supplied to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention to demonstrate that the documents from serial No. 27 to serial no. 40 deal with Crime No.II-08/2017 which includes the complaint on the basis of which C.R.No. I-8/2017 was registered as well as statements of persons related to the said crime and other documents including the application for bail, receipt of depositing the bail amount etc. The learned Counsel would argue that consideration of the said material by the Detaining Authority in wp-4646-17.doc relation to the offences under the Land Revenue Code and the Environmental Code would reveal that the Detaining Authority was influenced by the said alleged act of the detenu and has taken into consideration irrelevant extraneous material which vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the authority.

6 When we had called upon the learned APP to deal with the said ground, Ms. Mhatre, learned APP, invited our attention to that portion of the affidavit filed by the Detaining Authority where the said ground has been specifically dealt with. The relevant portion of the affidavit is reproduced as below :-

"With reference to grounds 6(b) of the petition, it is denied that the incident narrated in Paragraph No. 4 (a) (i) of the grounds of detention is irrelevant to hold that the detenu is a dangerous person. It is further denied that this shows total non- application of mind on my part.