Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu challenges the order of detention. The said order has been passed 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' for brevity). The order of detention is dated 27 th September 2017. It is issued u/s 3 of MPDA Act by first respondent. The respondent nos.2 to 4 are the State of Maharashtra through 2 914.WP.28.2018.J Department of Home, the Superintendent of Kolhapur Prison and the Secretary, Advisory Board for MPDA Act.

7. The argument of Mr.Tripathi is that if the detenu was already in custody and he did not apply for bail, then, the subjective satisfaction, as recorded, is wholly vitiated. The subjective 6 914.WP.28.2018.J satisfaction must reflect compliance with twin requirements of law. If the petitioner-detenu has not sought bail, but he still can be detained under MPDA Act, then, there should be materials which would indicate his imminent possibility of being enlarged on bail in future and real apprehension of continuation of his activities, so as to endanger the public order. In the present case, there is no material to indicate that there is possibility of the detenu being released from custody. In other words, there is no imminent possibility of he being enlarged on bail. Mr.Tripathi would submit that if this order of detention is made on 27th September 2017 and in connection with both cases the detenu continues to be in custody from August-2017, then, bearing in mind the object and purpose of MPDA Act and more particularly Section 3(1) of MPDA Act, the order of detention could not have been made. The necessity to detain ought to be viewed in the backdrop of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of MPDA Act. The satisfaction should be that it is necessary to prevent a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and it is necessary so to do, that the person should be detained. This element can never be said to be satisfied given the detenu's detention in custody. If there is no possibility of his release, then, there is no continuity attached to his activities. Hence, there is no necessity of his detention. That is how the detention order is vitiated and must be set aside.

8 914.WP.28.2018.J She submits that Mr.Tripathi's argument pre-supposes that no detention order can be passed against a detenu because he is in custody and did not apply for bail at all. She submits that the law is otherwise. She would submit that at least in three decisions in the case of Veermani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1 and Senthamilselvi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that even if the detenu did not apply for bail, that is immaterial and irrelevant for reaching the subjective satisfaction and it can still be reached when the detenu is required to be detained under laws like MPDA Act. She also relies upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in case of Aarif @ Yasir Ahmed Satlar Ahmed Vs. D.Divanandan and others3.

12. For properly appreciating the contentions, we will have to refer the object and purpose of MPDA Act. The MPDA Act has been enacted to provide for preventive detention of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black-marketing of Essential Commodities, for preventing their dangerous activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It was a known fact that public order was adversely affected every now and then by the dangerous activities of certain persons. Having regard to the resources and influence of the persons by whom the large scale on which and the manner in which the dangerous activities were being clandestinely organized and carried on in violation of law by them, particularly in urban areas, the State was satisfied that circumstances existed which 11 914.WP.28.2018.J rendered it necessary for it to take immediate action to have a special law in the State to provide for preventive detention of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug-offenders and for matters connected therewith.