Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(PER N.J. JAMADAR, J.)

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

2. The challenge in this petition is to an order of detention, Mrs. Shraddha Talekar PS 2/20 CRI.WP-559-2021-J.doc dated 20th November 2020, passed against the petitioner by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City, under section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "MPDA Act, 1981").

11. Section 3 of MPDA Act, 1981 empowers the State Government and also empowered Officers to detain any person with a view of preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is trite that, "public order" and "law and order" are different concepts and have distinct juridical connotations. Only those acts which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, furnish a legitimate basis for preventive detention.

12. At this juncture, it may be appropriate to note the relevant provisions contained in the MPDA, Act, 1981 under which the Detaining Authority passed the impugned order. The Act defines 'dangerous person' as under :-

Mrs. Shraddha Talekar PS 13/20 CRI.WP-559-2021-J.doc

16. In the backdrop of the aforesaid enunciation of the legal position, we re-advert to the consideration of the pivotal question as to whether the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority, that the acts and conduct attributed to the petitioner warranted his detention by invoking the provisions contained in section 3(2) of the MPDA Act, 1981 on the premise that those acts were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, is sustainable? For an answer, it is necessary to consider the material which weighed with the Detaining Authority. The relevant part of the grounds of detention, furnished to the petitioner, bears upon the controversy. It reads as under :

24. The conspectus of the aforesaid consideration is that the Mrs. Shraddha Talekar PS 20/20 CRI.WP-559-2021-J.doc subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority suffers from misconstruction of material placed before it and, consequently, non-application of mind. The objectionable acts of the petitioner, even if taken at par, would fall within the dragnet of "law and order" and can be taken care of by ordinary laws. Thus, there was no justification for resorting to the provisions contained in section 3(2) of the MPDA Act, 1981 and, thereby impinge upon the cherished personal liberty of the petitioner.