RAVI SURESH SHINDE Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the Respondent State. In this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to an order of preventive detention passed in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous persons Video pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant invited our attention to paragraph No. 12 of grounds of detention served upon the Petitioner-Detenu. He pointed out that in the said ground, the detaining authority has set out the numbers of the First Information Reports, the Sections under which the First Information Reports have been registered and the names of the police stations at which the same have been registered. He submitted that paragraph 12 is one of the grounds for detention. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was influenced by offences which have been set out in the said paragraph. He urged that the detaining authority has not set out the relevant facts constituting the offences set out in paragraph 12 which have been taken into consideration by the said authority for passing the impugned order of detention. He urged that it cannot be dented that the order of detention is based on the First Information Reports set out in the said paragraph. He urged that as a result of the failure to set out the basic facts and materials, the Petitioner-Detenu was prevented from making an effective representation in accordance with Clause 5 of the Article 22 of the Constitution of India. He also invited our attention to the reply filed by the detaining authority and in particular paragraph 7. The learned APP supported the impugned order of detention by pointing out that there are several grounds of detention set out in the grounds served to the Petitioner. She also relied upon paragraph 7 of the reply by way of answer to the ground of challenge urged by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner.

(3.) We have given careful consideration to the submissions. We have perused the grounds of detention served to the Petitioner-Detenu. The first part of the communication dated 18th February, 2013 by which grounds were communicated to the Petitioner Detenu clearly recites that the grounds mentioned below were being communicated to the Petitioner on the basis of which the detention order has been issued by the detaining authority under Sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of the said Act. The grounds of detention have been set out in paragraph 1 to 21 below the said recital. It will be necessary to make reference to paragraph 12, which reads thus: