Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sadashiv s/o Shriram Jadhav, challenged the legality and correctness of a detention order dated 18.9.2020 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Akola (respondent no.2) under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act), and the confirmation order dated 20.10.2020 by the State of Maharashtra (respondent no.1). The petitioner contended that the detention order was illegal as it did not specify the period for which detention was ordered, relying on the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Act which mandates that no order passed under Section 3(2) shall, in the first instance, exceed six months. The petitioner cited Lahu Shrirang Gatkal v. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 13 SCC 519, where the Supreme Court held that a blanket order without specifying the period is invalid. The respondent State argued that non-mention of period is not fatal, relying on T. Devaki v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 1990 (2) SCC 456, a three-judge bench decision. The High Court examined both precedents and noted that Lahu Shrirang Gatkal was directly under the MPDA Act and held that the proviso to Section 3(2) requires the period to be specified, while T. Devaki was under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, etc., Act, 1982, which had different wording. The court found that the detention order in question did not specify any period and was therefore a blanket order, invalid in law. Consequently, the court quashed the detention order dated 18.9.2020 and the confirmation order dated 20.10.2020, and directed the petitioner's release unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - MPDA Act - Specification of Detention Period - Section 3(2) proviso of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 - The detention order must specify the period of detention in the first instance not exceeding six months; a blanket order without specifying period is invalid. The court followed Lahu Shrirang Gatkal v. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 13 SCC 519, which held that the proviso mandates specification of period, and distinguished T. Devaki v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 1990 (2) SCC 456, as being under a different Act. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a detention order under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 is invalid if it does not specify the period of detention.
Final Decision
The court quashed the detention order dated 18.9.2020 and the confirmation order dated 20.10.2020, and directed the petitioner's release unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Detention order must specify period of detention
- Blanket order invalid
- Section 3(2) proviso MPDA Act 1981
- Precedent conflict resolved by larger bench
