Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Heard Shri More, learned counsel for the petitioner-detenu and Shri Salgare, learned APP for the State. Learned counsel Shri More argued that there is no time stipulation in the order dated 10.03.2020 passed by respondent No. 2, which is against the provisions of law. He further submitted that the MPDA Act provides for detention for a period of six months however, the impugned order shows that the detenu was detained for a period of twelve months, which is against the law. The crimes registered against the detenu are bogus. The detenu is not a dangerous person so as to attract the provisions of MPDA Act. There was no subjective satisfaction on the part of the respondent No. 2 and, therefore, the proceedings stand vitiated on this ground alone. He further submitted that the in camera statements of witnesses A and are similar in nature and the allegations therein are vague. Therefore, on the basis of such allegations, it cannot be said that the detenu has engaged in activities of a sand smuggler or that he is a dangerous person. It was further argued that the respondents could not establish how the public order was disturbed.

7. Learned counsel Shri More further submitted that the definition 'sand smuggler' under the MPDA Act does not cover the offences under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. For detaining any person under the MPDA Act, it has to be established that the said person has committed offence under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. In the case at hand, the offences registered against the detenu are under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and, Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is not covered by the definition of 'sand smuggler' and, therefore, the respondent No. 2 has illegally invoked the provisions of the MPDA Act. Therefore, the detention of the detenu is per se illegal.

12. Section 8 of the MPDA Act makes it obligatory for the Detaining Authority to communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order has been made and this communication is required to be made within five days of the date of detention and also shall afford him an opportunity of making representation against the order of the State Government. Section 10 of the MPDA Act requires the State Government to place before the Advisory Board the grounds on which the order has been made within three weeks from the date of detention of a person. Section 11 states that within seven weeks from the date of detention of the person, the Advisory Board shall submit the report to the State Government. Section 13 states that detention shall not exceed twelve months.

13. In the case at hand, admittedly, detention order was passed on 10.03.2020 by the respondent No. 2. On 12.03.2020, the detention order was served on the detenu. The detenu was detained in the Central Prison, Aurangabad on 13.03.2020. The detention order was

- 12 -

approved by the State Government on 18.03.2020. The Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the MPDA Act heard the detenu on 23.04.2020 and confirmed the detention order on 24.04.2020. The chronology of these events clearly indicates that the provisions of the MPDA Act have been duly complied with. Opportunity of making representation has also been given in terms of Section 8 of the MPDA Act.