Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pravin Ganpat Kakad, challenged an order of detention dated 21.08.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Nashik City 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). The detention order and grounds of detention along with relied upon material were served upon the petitioner. The petitioner raised several grounds, but the learned counsel pressed grounds (c), (h), (i), and (f). Ground (c) pertained to improper recording of subjective satisfaction about truthfulness of in camera statements. Grounds (h) and (i) pertained to wrong translation of relied upon documents, and ground (f) pertained to alleged non-application of mind by the detaining authority. The court examined the record and found that the truthfulness of the in camera statements was not properly verified and recorded, indicating that there was no subjective satisfaction of the officers in that regard. The court relied on the precedent in Lakhan Rohidas Jagtap v. Commissioner of Police, Pune & Ors. The court held that the failure to properly record subjective satisfaction regarding the truthfulness of in camera statements vitiated the detention order. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition and quashed the detention order, directing that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - MPDA Act - Subjective Satisfaction - Section 3 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 detaining authority failed to properly verify and record subjective satisfaction regarding truthfulness of in camera statements, rendering the detention order invalid - Held that such failure vitiates the detention order (Paras 1-9). B) Preventive Detention - Right to Representation - Article 22(5) of Constitution of India - Non-application of mind by detaining authority in recording subjective satisfaction on in camera statements infringes the detenu's right to make effective representation - Held that the detention order is liable to be quashed (Paras 1-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the detention order under the MPDA Act is vitiated due to improper recording of subjective satisfaction regarding truthfulness of in camera statements and non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 21.08.2020 passed by the respondent No.1 - Commissioner of Police, Nashik City under Section 3 of the MPDA Act is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Subjective satisfaction must be properly recorded regarding truthfulness of in camera statements
- Non-application of mind by detaining authority invalidates detention order
- Right to make effective representation under Article 22(5) of Constitution
