Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. At the request of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2 Cri. W.P. 1745 / 2022 - Judgment

3. The petitioner is challenging the order of his detention passed under section 3(2) of the 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 (hereinafter MPDA Act) dated 07-06-2022.

4. The learned advocate Mr. Ambilwade for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is grossly illegal on variety of grounds. The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is not based on proper appreciation of the circumstances and the material. Though the statements of couple of individuals have been recorded in-camera, the detaining authority has not verified the correctness of their statements and has not even verified if really they were not willing to testify. The offence which forms the basis for the authorities to initiate action under the MPDA Act was an agitation for a public cause. There is even delay in recording the in-camera statements. The offence was registered on 09-12-2021. The statements of these witnesses were recorded on 09-05-2022 and 12-05-2022, after lapse of more than six months and these circumstances would be fatal.

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.