SACHIN @ BOBBY SAMBHAJI SHINDE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE SOLAPUR
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Sachin @ Bobby Sambhaji Shinde
Commissioner Of Police Solapur
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) As a common question arises for consideration, these three petitions are taken up together for hearing.
(2.) In these petitions, the challenge is to the orders of preventive detention passed by the Detaining Authority under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords Bootleggers and Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and persons engaged in Black-marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short 'the said Act'). The learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the provisions of section 3 of the said Act. He also invited our attention to the provisions of Sections 9 to 13 of the said Act. He submitted that in all three cases, in the impugned orders, the period of detention is not mentioned. He pointed out that the State Government has directed the detention of the petitioners in these three cases at a stroke for a period of one year. He submitted that the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Cherukuri Mani w/o Narendra Chowdari vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhara Pradesh and others, (2015) 13 SCC 722 is crystal clear. He pointed that in the said decision, the Apex Court interpreted the provision of section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 which is pari materia with section 3 of the said Act. He relied upon paragraphs 12 to 15 of the said decision. He pointed out that the Apex Court has held that the Government cannot direct extension of period of detention upto maximum period of twelve months in one stroke. He relied upon another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lahu Shrirang Gatkal vs. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and others, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 826. He submitted that in the said decision, the law laid down in the case of Cherukuri Mani w/o Narendra Chowdari (supra) has been followed by the Apex Court. He submitted that the Apex Court has interpreted section 3 of the said Act in the said decision. He placed reliance on the order of the Apex Court dated 17th July 2017 by which the application for review of the Judgment in the case of Lahu Shrirang Gatkal (supra) was rejected. He submitted that in these three cases, the admitted position is that period of detention was extended at a stroke for a period exceeding six months and therefore, the impugned orders are vitiated.
(3.) The learned APP submitted that apart from the fact that the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Cherukuri Mani w/o Narendra Chowdari (supra) and Lahu Shrirang Gatkal (supra) is contrary to the decision of the larger Benches of the Apex Court, in any event, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lahu Shrirang Gatkal cannot be treated as a binding precedent in the light of the law laid down by the co-ordinate Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Mrs.Harpreet Kaur Harvinder Singh Bedi vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (1992)2 SCC 177. The learned APP also relied upon various other decisions of the Apex Court. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Makhan Singh Tarsikka vs. State of Punjab, AIR (39) 1952 SC 27. Reliance was also placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of E.Subbulakshmi vs. State of Tamilnadu, (2017) 1 SCC 757 and Smt.Kavitha w/o Sunder Shankardas Devidasani vs. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 3 SCC 558. Lastly, the learned APP invited our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mrs. T.Devaki Vs. State of Tamilnadu, (1990) 2 SCC 456.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.