S.W.PURANIK J. - (1.) THE petitioner -detenu has been detained by an order dated July 12, 1990 issued by the 1st respondent under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug -Offenders Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.P.D.A. Act'). The petitioner detenu was detained on July 27, 1990 in pursuance of the said order. He has been committed for detention at Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik. The petitioner -detenu was served with order of detention along with the order of committal to prison, the grounds of detention and the documents on the basis of which the order of detention came to be issued.
(2.) SHRI U.N. Tripathi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has challenged the order of detention on various grounds. However, he has restricted his submissions only to ground 6 J. of the petition as amended. Briefly stated, it is his contention that the impugned order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, the 1st respondent to this petition, is without authority of law inasmuch as there was not valid conferment of power on the said authority by the Stale Government. He contends that while issuing the order of delegation and conferment, the State Government has not applied its mind to the circumstances prevailing or the alternative circumstances that were likely to prevail in future. He pointed out that while issuing the order of conferment the Stale Government has bodily lifted the words and phraseology from Section 3(2) of the M.P.D.A. Act. He relied upon the latest view expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Abhay Shridhar Ambulkar v. S.V. Bhave, Commissioner of Police : AIR1991SC397 . Shri S.G. Page, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents, vehemently opposed the grounds contended on behalf of the petitioner. According to him, the Supreme Court decision in Ambulkar's case relied upon by the petitioner was on a different set of facts. Secondly, in the instant case, the order of conferment was only for a limited period of three months, and the said period having elapsed, the impugned notification of conferment no longer subsists and, therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the said order of conferment. He also submitted that under Sub -section (3) of Section 3 of the M.P.D.A. Act, the order issued by the detaining authority has been confirmed within 12 days by the State Government and as such the order of the 1st respondent has merged into an order of the State Government and is not open to challenge. Lastly, it is submitted that the word 'or' used in Sub -section (2) of Section 3 of the M.P.D.A. Act should be read as 'and' which would be the correct interpretation conveying the meaning and object of the provision.
(3.) IN order to appreciate the above submissions, it is necessary to reproduce Section 3 of the M.P.D.A. Act: 3. (1) The State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. (2) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may, by order in writing, direct, that during such period as may be specified in the order such District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as provided in Sub -section (1), exercise the powers conferred by the said sub -section: Provided that the period specified in the order made by the Stale Government under this sub -section shall not, in the first instance, exceed three months, but the State Government may, if satisfied as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend such order to extend such period from time to lime by any period not exceeding three months at any one time. (3) When any order is made under this section by an officer mentioned in Sub -section (2), he shall forthwith report the fact to the Slate Government, together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof, unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government. ;