Decided on September 12,2017

Shri Taufq Ismail Shaikh @ Oailwan Appellant
Ravindra Sengaonkar And Ors. Respondents


A.S.OKA,J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioner by this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has taken an exception to the order dated 20 th March 2017 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Solapur under subsection (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and persons engaged in Blackmarketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short "the said Act"). By the said order, the petitioner was ordered to be preventively detained under the provisions of the said Act.
(3.) In support of the petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pressed into service two grounds of challenge, namely, grounds B and C, which read thus: "B) That the detenu was arraigned as an accused in CR No.514/2016 registered at Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur on 16.10.2016. The detenu was arrested in the said case on 25.11.2016. Thereafter the detenu was arrested in CR no 517/2016 on 28.11.2016. The detenu was released on bail on 30.12.2016. Thereafter detenu was released on bail on 1.3.2017. Statements of incamera witnesses were recorded on 24.2.2017 and 25.3.2017, those statements were verified by the concerned ACP on 27.2.2017. Thereafter the order of detention was issued by the detaining authority on 20.3.2017, by relying upon the documents running into about 846 pages, including the translation of most of the documents in Marathi. The last document placed before the detaining authority was dated 1.3.2017, as such it was virtually impossible for the detaining authority to issue the detention order on 20.3.2017, after applying his mind and arriving at his subjective satisfaction and also to serve the same after getting the papers translated on 20.3.2017, due to paucity of time. Therefore, the detaining authority has issued the detention order hurriedly, mechanically and without application of mind. The impugned order of detention as issued is, thus, per se punitive in character, null and void. C) That it appears that the detaining authority has not formulated the grounds by himself, and has issued the order on the basis of the ground already formulated by the sponsoring authority or has merely copied the proposal as forwarded by the sponsoring authority." (underline supplied) His submission based on factual aspects set out in ground B is that the impugned order of detention has been passed hurriedly, mechanically and without application of mind. His contention is that considering the factual aspects, the detaining authority has not himself formulated the grounds of detention. The submission is that the order of preventive detention is punitive in character and hence, illegal. ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.