1999 (10) TMI 724 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention order under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (MPDA Act).
2. Non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority.
3. Consideration of extraneous material by the Detaining Authority.
4. Non-filing of affidavit by the Detaining Authority.
5. Incorrect citation of legal provisions in the detention order and grounds of detention.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the detention order under the MPDA Act:
The petitioner challenged the detention order dated 16.4.1999, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, under Section 3(1) of the MPDA Act, 1981. The order aimed to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds for detention included the petitioner's involvement in 14 criminal cases since 1989, and three previous detentions under the National Security Act, 1980. The Detaining Authority found the petitioner to be a dangerous person whose activities caused terror and insecurity among the public.

2. Non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the detention order suffered from non-application of mind, as the Detaining Authority did not verify the status of the 14 old cases, including one acquittal and quashing of a previous detention order. The Detaining Authority relied on outdated and irrelevant material, which could have influenced its decision. The court found that the Detaining Authority failed to examine the progress and outcomes of these cases, which could have affected its subjective satisfaction. This non-application of mind rendered the detention order invalid.

3. Consideration of extraneous material by the Detaining Authority:
The court noted that the Detaining Authority considered extraneous material, such as the petitioner's past detentions under the National Security Act, without verifying their current status. This reliance on outdated information, including an acquittal in one case and the quashing of a previous detention order, indicated a lack of proper examination and non-application of mind. The court held that this vitiated the detention order.

4. Non-filing of affidavit by the Detaining Authority:
The petitioner's counsel contended that the affidavit in reply was not filed by the Detaining Authority, but by the current Commissioner of Police, who did not pass the impugned order. The court referred to precedents where the Supreme Court held that the affidavit should come from the Detaining Authority or a person directly connected with the order. The court found that the absence of an affidavit from the Detaining Authority, without any explanation, made it difficult to appreciate the contentions made in the affidavit filed by the current Commissioner of Police.

5. Incorrect citation of legal provisions in the detention order and grounds of detention:
The petitioner argued that the Detaining Authority misquoted the legal provisions, citing Section 3(1) of the MPDA Act in the detention order and Section 3(2) in the grounds of detention. The court clarified that the power to pass the detention order flows from Section 3(1), while Section 3(2) authorizes the State Government to delegate this power. Although this misquotation did not invalidate the order, it highlighted the need for accurate legal citations.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the detention order dated 16.4.1999 due to non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority, reliance on extraneous material, and the absence of an affidavit from the Detaining Authority. The petitioner was ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.