Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. He would lastly submit that there is strict compliance with the timeline laid down under the MPDA Act in taking steps. The petitioner was detained on 30-07-2022 and the papers were transmitted to the Advisory Board on 05-08-2022 i.e. within three weeks of the date of detention, as is required by section 10 of the MPDA Act. The provision merely requires the papers to be transmitted to the Advisory Board. Section 11 allows the Advisory Board to take decision within 7 weeks from the date of detention and there is no error.

(emphasis supplied) A plain reading of this provision and particularly the words in bold would indicate that State government has to place before the advisory board the detention order and the grounds on which such order is passed together with the representation of the detenue as well as the report of the officers under section 3(3) of the MPDA Act within three weeks from the date of detention.

17. There is no dispute about the fact that though the impugned order of detention was passed on 07-06-2022, the petitioner was actually detained on 11-06-2022. The affidavit in reply does not expressly mention the date on which the order of detention together with the grounds and other annexures mentioned herein-above was placed before the advisory board as is required by section 10 of the MPDA Act. We had requested the learned A.P.P. to ascertain the fact. On instructions, he submits that such compliance was made and the matter was placed before the advisory board on 07-07-2022. Which means it was so placed before the advisory board beyond three weeks from the date of detention. If this is so, there is a gross violation of the provision of section 10 of the MPDA Act.

19. Though ingenious, we cannot accept the submission for the simple reason that there is no ambiguity in the substantive provision of section 10 of the MPDA Act so that any aid can be had from the head note. The provision clearly requires placing of the detention order before the advisory board and not its mere transmission. In Bhinka (supra), it has been clearly laid down that only if there is any doubt in the interpretation of the words in the section that the heading helps to resolve the doubt. When section 10 of the MPDA Act is clear and unambiguous, we cannot refer to the heading, to interpret the provision as is submitted by Mr. Nerlikar."

22. Admittedly, there is no whisper in the affidavit-in-reply to point out as to exactly on which date the matter was placed before the Advisory Board, as is required by section 10 of the MPDA Act. Going by the papers given to us by the learned APP, the petitioner was detained on 30-07-2022. The papers were transmitted to the Advisory Board on 05-08-2022. In-fact, the Board conducted the hearing on 24-08-2022. There is no other date indicated in the affidavit in reply or available to be gathered from the papers of the prosecution to demonstrate about the Advisory Board having considered the petitioner's matter prior to 24-08-2022. If that be so, the date of detention being 30-07-2022, if the papers were placed before the Advisory Board on 24-08-2022, it would be beyond three weeks and in breach of the mandatory provision contained in section 10 of the MPDA Act.