Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, mother of the detenu Asif Abdul Ahad Shaikh, challenged a detention order dated 30 July 2005 passed under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (MPDA Act). The detention was based on a criminal case (C.R. No. 114 of 2005) under Sections 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and in-camera statements of two witnesses 'A' and 'B'. The petitioner argued that the alleged activities only affected law and order, not public order, and thus did not justify preventive detention. The court, after hearing counsel for both sides, focused on the first ground raised by the petitioner. It examined the grounds of detention and found that the detenu and the complainant resided in the same building, and the incident was a personal dispute between them. The court held that such individual disputes do not have a bearing on public order, which requires a disturbance affecting the community at large. Consequently, the detention order was quashed and set aside, and the detenu was ordered to be released forthwith.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - MPDA Act - Public Order vs. Law and Order - The activities alleged against the detenu, including a criminal case under Sections 504 and 114 IPC and in-camera statements, pertained to a personal dispute between the detenu and a co-resident of the same building, affecting only the individual and not the community at large. Held that such activities do not disturb public order and are merely law and order issues, rendering the detention order invalid. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the alleged activities of the detenu under C.R. No. 114 of 2005 and in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' affect public order or merely law and order, thereby justifying preventive detention under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the detention order dated 30.7.2005, and directed the release of the detenu forthwith.
Law Points
- Distinction between law and order and public order
- Preventive detention under MPDA Act requires threat to public order
- Individual disputes do not affect public order
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (07) 40
Criminal Writ Petition No. 2806 of 2005
D. G. Deshpande, S. A. Bobde
Mrs. A. M. Z. Ansari for the Petitioner, Mrs. A. S. Pai, APP for the Respondents - State
Smt. Halima Abdul Ahad Shaikh
Shri A. N. Roy, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai; The State of Maharashtra; The Superintendent of Jail, Nashik Road Central Prison; The Superintendent of Jail, Thane Central Prison; The Secretary, Advisory Board (MPDA), Mantralaya, Mumbai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging preventive detention order under MPDA Act
Remedy Sought
Quashing of detention order and release of detenu
Filing Reason
Detention order dated 30.7.2005 under MPDA Act based on C.R. No. 114/2005 and in-camera statements
Issues
Whether the activities alleged against the detenu affect public order or merely law and order
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the activities of the detenu, including C.R. No. 114/2005 under Sections 504 and 114 IPC and in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B', did not affect public order but were only law and order issues.
Respondent State argued in support of the detention order.
Ratio Decidendi
For an activity to justify preventive detention under the MPDA Act, it must affect public order, i.e., disturb the even tempo of life of the community. A personal dispute between two individuals residing in the same building, even if involving criminal acts, does not have a bearing on public order and is merely a law and order issue.
Judgment Excerpts
The ground that was raised by Mrs. Ansari was that the activities of the detenu so far as it related to the facts of C.R. No. 114 of 2005 under Section 504 and 114 of the IPC and the in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' did not affect public order at all.
She contended that it may be a case of law and order but not a case of public order.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 2806 of 2005 before the Bombay High Court challenging the detention order dated 30.7.2005 passed under the MPDA Act. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 19.7.2006.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 504, 114
