Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Suman Sudhakar Jadhav, mother of the detenu Ganesh Sudhakar Jadhav @ Kalya Ganya, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the detention order dated 2.12.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Thane, under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (MPDA Act). The detention order along with grounds of detention was served on the detenu on the same day. The petitioner raised several grounds, but only ground 6(b) was pressed before the court. That ground contended that the detaining authority, in the opening paragraph of the grounds of detention, specifically stated that it was communicating the grounds as mentioned in paragraph 4(a) on which the order was passed on 01.12.2015. Paragraph 4(a) contained only one case, i.e., C.R. No. I-559 of 2015. Thus, paragraph 5 of the grounds was not considered by the authority, indicating non-application of mind. The court examined the detention order and grounds and found that the detaining authority had indeed stated that the order was based on the grounds in paragraph 4(a) only. The court held that this clearly showed non-application of mind, as the authority failed to consider all the grounds. Consequently, the detention order was quashed and set aside, and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Non-Application of Mind - MPDA Act, 1981, Section 3(2) - The detaining authority stated that the detention order was based on grounds mentioned in paragraph 4(a) only, which contained a single case, thereby ignoring paragraph 5 of the grounds. Held that this indicates non-application of mind and vitiates the detention order (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the detention order under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (MPDA Act) is vitiated due to non-application of mind when the detaining authority stated that the order was based only on paragraph 4(a) of the grounds, ignoring paragraph 5.
Final Decision
The detention order dated 2.12.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Thane, is quashed and set aside. The detenu Ganesh Sudhakar Jadhav @ Kalya Ganya be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Non-application of mind
- Preventive detention
- Single case not sufficient
- Grounds of detention must be considered in entirety
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (03) 100
Criminal Writ Petition No. 5036 of 2015
Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, Smt. Anuja Prabhudessai
Mr. Udaynath Tripathi for Petitioner, Mrs. A.S. Pai A.P.P. for the State
Smt. Suman Sudhakar Jadhav (Mother of Detenu)
The Commissioner of Police, Thane; The State of Maharashtra; The Superintendent, Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik
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 passed without considering all grounds, indicating non-application of mind
Previous Decisions
Detention order dated 2.12.2015 passed by Commissioner of Police, Thane; grounds of detention served on same day
Issues
Whether the detention order is vitiated due to non-application of mind when the detaining authority stated that the order was based only on paragraph 4(a) of the grounds, ignoring paragraph 5.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the detaining authority specifically mentioned that the order was based on grounds in paragraph 4(a) only, which contained a single case, thus ignoring paragraph 5, showing non-application of mind.
Ratio Decidendi
When the detaining authority states that the detention order is based only on certain paragraphs of the grounds of detention, ignoring other paragraphs, it indicates non-application of mind and vitiates the detention order.
Judgment Excerpts
Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - Suman Sudhakar Jadhav who is the mother of detenu - Ganesh Sudhakar Jadhav @ Kalya Ganya, has impugned the order of detention dated 2.12.2015 passed by Respondent no.1 Commissioner of Police, Thane, detaining the detenu under Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (Mah. Act No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996) (Mah. Ord. X of 2009) (hereinafter referred to as 'MPDA Act').
Though a number of grounds have been raised in this petition assailing the order of detention, only one ground was pressed before us i.e. ground 6(b) in the petition.
The detaining authority has specifically mentioned in the opening paragraph of the grounds of detention that the said authority is communicating to the detenu the grounds as mentioned in paragraph No. 4(a) on which the order of detention has been passed by the said authority on 01.12.2015. There is only one case i.e. C.R. No. I-559 of 2015 in para 4(a) of the grounds of detention. It is therefore, clear that para 5 of the grounds of detention is not considered by the said authority for passing order of detention.
In this view of the matter, the detention order cannot be sustained and the same is required to be quashed and set aside.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 5036 of 2015 before the Bombay High Court challenging the detention order dated 2.12.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Thane, under Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act. The court heard the petition and delivered judgment on 22.03.2016.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (MPDA Act): Section 3(2)
- Constitution of India: Article 226
