Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Tambe, challenged his preventive detention under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act) by a detention order dated 29.08.2022 and confirmation order dated 08.09.2022. The petitioner was involved in three criminal cases, in each of which he was granted bail. The petitioner argued that the Detaining Authority failed to consider the grounds of bail, rendering the detention order invalid. The State, represented by the APP, supported the orders. The High Court examined the grounds of detention and found that the Detaining Authority had specifically referred to the bail orders and stated that it had gone through the details of those orders. The court held that this indicated due consideration of the bail grounds, and despite the grant of bail, the Authority reached a subjective satisfaction that the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to public order, necessitating preventive detention. The court further found that there was a proximate nexus between the impugned orders and the object of preventive detention. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the detention orders.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - MPDA Act - Consideration of Bail Orders - The Detaining Authority's reference to bail orders and statement that it has gone through the details of bail orders indicates due consideration; mere grant of bail does not preclude preventive detention if the authority is satisfied that the detainee's activities are prejudicial to public order (Paras 5-6).
B) Preventive Detention - MPDA Act - Proximate Nexus - The grounds of detention and confirmation order must have a proximate nexus with the object of preventive detention; in this case, the court found that there was hardly anything in the impugned orders lacking such nexus (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the preventive detention order under the MPDA Act is invalid for non-consideration of bail grounds and lack of proximate nexus with public order
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The preventive detention order dated 29.08.2022 and confirmation order dated 08.09.2022 are upheld.
Law Points
- Preventive detention
- MPDA Act
- consideration of bail orders
- nexus with public order
- subjective satisfaction of detaining authority
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (12) 153
Criminal Writ Petition No. 765 of 2022
Sunil B. Shukre, M. W. Chandwani
S. N. Nandeshwar for petitioner, S. S. Doifode for respondents/State
Rahul S/o. Jugaldas Tambe
State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Home Department, Mumbai; Commissioner, Nagpur City; Assistant Commissioner of Police, Zone-III, Nagpur; Police Inspector, Police Station Shanti Nagar, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging preventive detention order under MPDA Act
Remedy Sought
Quashing of detention order dated 29.08.2022 and confirmation order dated 08.09.2022
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that the Detaining Authority did not consider the grounds of bail, rendering the detention order invalid
Previous Decisions
Detention order dated 29.08.2022 and confirmation order dated 08.09.2022 passed under MPDA Act
Issues
Whether the preventive detention order is invalid for non-consideration of bail grounds
Whether the impugned orders lack proximate nexus with the object of preventive detention
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel argued that the grounds of bail were not considered by the Detaining Authority, rendering the detention order invalid
APP supported the orders, stating that the grounds of detention and confirmation order have a proximate nexus with the object of preventive detention
Ratio Decidendi
The Detaining Authority's reference to bail orders and statement that it has gone through the details of bail orders indicates due consideration of bail grounds; the grant of bail does not prevent the Authority from reaching a subjective satisfaction that preventive detention is necessary to prevent the detainee from continuing activities prejudicial to public order.
Judgment Excerpts
On going through the grounds of detention and confirmation order, we find that learned APP is right in his opinion as there is hardly anything in the impugned orders, which could be said to be not having any proximate nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the order of preventive detention and the confirmation order passed against the petitioner.
The detaining order specifically refers to the bail orders and the concerned Officer has stated that he has gone through the details of the bail orders. Once, reference to the bail orders is made in these words, it cannot be said that the concerned Officer has not considered the grounds of bail.
Procedural History
The petitioner was detained under MPDA Act by order dated 29.08.2022, confirmed on 08.09.2022. He filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 765 of 2022 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the orders. The petition was heard and dismissed on 22.12.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981:
