Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under MPDA Act for Lack of Public Order Disturbance — Demand of Money from Individual Worker Does Not Affect Public Order. The court held that an incident of demanding money from a single person, without more, does not disturb public order and cannot justify preventive detention under Section 3 of the MPDA Act.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Vinod Ramjiyawan Rajbhar, was detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (MPDA Act) by an order dated 1st September 2005. He challenged the detention order through a criminal writ petition. The sole ground argued was Ground No. 7(B) concerning C.R.No.75/2005 registered at Wadala Police Station on 14.7.2005. The incident, as per the grounds of detention, occurred on 13.07.2005 when the detenu and his associate Saleem Ismail Deshmukh demanded Rs.5000 from one Yogesh Vichare, who was supervising civil construction work, and threatened him. The petitioner's counsel argued that even if the incident is taken as true, it does not show that public order was disturbed. The court examined the grounds and found that the incident involved a demand for money from an individual, which at best affects law and order but not public order. The court held that for preventive detention under the MPDA Act, the activity must affect public order, not merely law and order. Since the grounds did not demonstrate any disturbance to public order, the detention order was unsustainable. The court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order, directing the detenu's release unless required in any other case.

Headnote

A) Preventive Detention - MPDA Act - Public Order vs. Law and Order - Section 3 of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 - The detenu demanded Rs.5000 from a civil construction worker, threatening him. The court held that such an incident, even if true, does not disturb public order but merely affects law and order. The detention order was quashed as the grounds did not show any disturbance to public order. (Paras 3-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the incident of demanding money from an individual worker, without more, can be considered as affecting public order so as to justify preventive detention under the MPDA Act.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The detention order dated 1st September 2005 is quashed and set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Law Points

  • Preventive detention
  • Public order vs. law and order
  • MPDA Act
  • Section 3
  • Grounds of detention
  • C.R.No.75/2005
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (BOM) (07) 136

Criminal Writ Petition No.2845 of 2005

2006-07-28

D.G.Deshpande, S.A.Bobde

2006:BHC-AS:14469-DB

Mr.U.N.Tripathi for the petitioner, Mr.D.S.Mhaispurkar, APP, for the respondents

Shri Vinod Ramjiyawan Rajbhar

Shri A.N.Roy, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai; The State of Maharashtra; The Superintendent, Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik

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 and release of detenu

Filing Reason

Detenu challenged the detention order on the ground that the incident relied upon does not affect public order

Issues

Whether the incident of demanding money from an individual worker can be considered as affecting public order under the MPDA Act

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that even if the incident in C.R.No.75/2005 is taken as true, it does not show disturbance to public order Respondents argued in support of the detention order

Ratio Decidendi

For preventive detention under the MPDA Act, the alleged activity must affect public order, not merely law and order. An incident of demanding money from an individual, without more, does not disturb public order and cannot justify detention.

Judgment Excerpts

even if the incident covered by this C.R. is taken into consideration as it is from the grounds of detention, it does not show that public order was disturbed thereby. The incident is given in the grounds of detention in para 5(a)(i). According to it, on 13.07.2005. at about 11.00 hrs. one Yogesh Vichare was supervising the work of civil construction. At that time, the detenu and his one associate Saleem Ismail Deshmukh went there and demanded Rs.5000/- from Yogesh Vichare.

Procedural History

The detenu was detained under MPDA Act by order dated 1st September 2005. He filed Criminal Writ Petition No.2845 of 2005 challenging the detention. The petition was heard and decided on 28th July 2006.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981: Section 3
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under MPDA Act for Lack of Public Order Disturbance — Demand of Money from Individual Worker Does Not Affect Public Order. The court held that an incident of demanding money from a single person, without mo...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Father's Appeal for Custody of Minor Children in Guardianship Dispute. Welfare of Minor Children is Paramount Consideration Under Section 7 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890.