Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sk. Israil Sk. Babbu, was detained by an order dated 26.2.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Amravati, under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (the Act), read with a Government Order dated 23.12.2004. The detention order was approved by the State Government on 3.3.2005 under Section 3(3) of the Act. The petitioner challenged the detention order by way of a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench). The sole ground urged by the petitioner's counsel, Shri S.A. Jaiswal, was that the detention order did not specify the period of detention, and therefore, the order was vitiated. In support, he relied on a Division Bench judgment of the same court in Samsher Ali v. State of Maharashtra (2003 ALL MR (Cri.) 1057), which had allowed a similar petition following the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Police v. Gurubux Anandram Bhiryani (1988 Supp SCC 568). The respondent State, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Shri S.G. Loney, countered that the Supreme Court in T. Devaki v. Government of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1990 SC 1086) had expressly overruled Gurubux Bhiryani and held that non-specification of the period of detention does not vitiate the order. The court examined the submissions and found that the Supreme Court in T. Devaki had indeed overruled the ratio in Gurubux Bhiryani. Consequently, the judgment in Samsher Ali, which relied on the overruled decision, was per incuriam and did not lay down correct law. The court rejected the petitioner's argument and dismissed the petition, holding that the detention order was not vitiated by the omission to specify the period of detention.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Non-specification of period - Section 3(1) Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 - The petitioner challenged the detention order on the ground that the period of detention was not mentioned. The court held that the order is not vitiated by such omission, as the Supreme Court in T. Devaki v. Government of Tamil Nadu overruled the earlier decision in Commissioner of Police v. Gurubux Anandram Bhiryani which had held otherwise. The Division Bench judgment in Samsher Ali v. State of Maharashtra, which relied on Gurubux Bhiryani, was held per incuriam. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an order of detention under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 is vitiated if the period of detention is not specified in the order.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The detention order is not vitiated by non-specification of the period of detention.
Law Points
- Detention order not vitiated by non-specification of period
- Per incuriam judgment
- Overruling of precedent
