N. V. Dabholkar, J. - (1.)The writ petition invites this Court to exercise its plenary powers under Articles 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India, and prays to quash and set aside detention order No d O 2005/mpda/det-1/cd-8, dated 24-2-2005, issued by respondent No 2 in exercise of powers conferred by section 3 (1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drugoffenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981. (henceforth, referred to as "mpda Act")
(2.)Factual matrix essential for the purpose, can be stated as follows -By considering proposal sponsored by the Crime Branch, Aurangabad, the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad, (henceforth referred to as "respondent No 2") , passed an order on 24-2-2005 in three parts as at Exhibits A and B to the petition. Observing that, it is necessary with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, respondent No. 2 has directed detention of the Petitioner. There is no dispute that, respondent No. 2 is delegated and empowered to exercise powers under section 3 (1) of the MPDA Act. A report as required under section 3 (3) of the said Act, was submitted to the State, by the Detaining Authority respondent No. 2, on 28-2-2005 and the State Government has issued its approval to the said order, on 3-3-2005 within the limit of twelve days as prescribed by the said provision. A reference under section 10 to the Advisory Board was made on 4-3-2005 and the opinion of the Advisory Board was received by the Government, on 7-4-2005. Both the events had occurred within outer time limit prescribed by sections 10 and 11 respectively, i. e. within three weeks and seven weeks respectively, from the date of order of detention. The petitioner is under detention from the date of order i. e. 24-2-2005. The order of detention was served on the petitioner on the same day and information about his detention and place of detention was given to his wife, namely, Begabai, also on the same day. Grounds of detention and other relevant paper, along with marathi translation, were served on the petitioner, on 26-2-2005. The petitioner directed his representation dated 2-4-2005 to the Advisory Board constituted under section 9 of the MPDA Act, which was also received by the Government, along with report of the Advisory Board, on 11. 4. 2005. The report of the Advisory Board was processed after obtaining para-wise remarks from the detaining Authority (which were received on 15-4-2005) on 16th, 19th and 20th April, 2005. 17th, 18th April, and 22nd to 24th april, 2005 being holidays, rejection of representation was conveyed to the detenue vide Government communication dated 25-4-2005. On the same day, the Government has issued an order confirming the detention order passed by the Detaining authority (Exh. C). Consequently, the petitioner is ordered to be continued under detention for a period of one year from the date of his initial detention, i. e. 24-2-2005.
(3.)So far as material, upon which the order of detention is based, is concerned, it can be said that the Detaining Authority has placed reliance upon five offences registered against the petitioner under the provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, mainly under section 66 (l) (b) and 65 (f) of the Act. Three offences were registered in the year 2001, by Cantonment Police Station and two by M. I. D. C. , Waluj police Station, in the year 2004. It seems that, the proceedings under section 93 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, are also initiated by police Station, M. I. D. C. , Waluj, which are numbered as Chapter Cases No. 7/2001, 15/2001 and 5/2003. All are pending before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, aurangabad. Last two offences under Prohibition act, i. e. 6075 of 2004 and 6082 of 2004, are registered on 26-11-2004 and 30-12-2004 and on both the occasions quite a big haul of contraband i. e. material useful for distilling illicit liquor, is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. In addition, there are four in-camera statements (Exh. D collectively). The witnesses at A, B and C have threatened them in January, 2005, December, 2004 and december 2004, respectively. The witnesses B and C also claim to have been beaten by the petitioner. Witness D has spoken about the state of affairs around location, from where the petitioner is dealing in illicit liquor.