Bombay High Court Dismisses Challenge to MPDA Detention Order Based on Severability of Grounds and Absence of Period in Initial Order. Detention Order Upheld as Past History Ground is Severable Under Section 5A, and Omission of Period in Initial Order Does Not Vitiate Detention.

Criminal writ petition challenging a preventive detention order passed under the MPDA Act.

Petitioner sought quashing and setting aside of the detention order dated 22.08.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City.

The petitioner alleged that the detention order was invalid as it did not mention the period of detention, relied on a single bailable offence, lacked proper translation of documents, and did not communicate all grounds, particularly ground no. 5 (past history).

The detention order was confirmed by the State Government for a period of 12 months on 06.10.2017 after the Advisory Board's opinion dated 05.10.2017.

Whether failure to mention the period of detention in the initial order under Section 3(1) vitiates the detention. Whether the detention order is invalid for not being reviewed every three months. Whether the registration of only one bailable offence, along with in-camera statements, constituted valid grounds for detention as a dangerous person. Whether non-supply of true and correct translation of documents deprived the petitioner of effective representation. Whether non-communication of ground no. 5 (past history) vitiates the detention order, and if such ground is severable under Section 5A of the MPDA Act.

Petitioner: The detention order fails to mention the period of detention, rendering it void. Petitioner: The detention must be reviewed every three months; indefinite detention is impermissible. Petitioner: Only one crime with bailable offences was considered; the activities do not show the petitioner is a dangerous person or disturb public order. Petitioner: True and correct translation of documents was not supplied, hampering the right to make a representation. Petitioner: Ground no. 5 (past history) was not communicated as required; merely citing crime numbers and sections is insufficient, relying on Sandeep Khalase v. Commissioner of Police. Respondents: The MPDA Act does not require the period to be mentioned in the detention order; the outer limit is fixed by the Government after the Advisory Board's opinion under Section 12, as held by a Division Bench of this Court. Respondents: The detention was confirmed for 12 months after the Advisory Board's report; the review mechanism was followed. Respondents: The complaint and in-camera statements revealed threatening behaviour, making the detenu a dangerous person; the bailability of the offence does not affect the satisfaction of the detaining authority. Respondents: The detenu was supplied documents in Hindi, which he understands, causing no prejudice. Respondents: Ground no. 5 is past history and severable under Section 5A per Ramesh Balu Chavan v. Commissioner of Police; the detention order remains valid on the remaining grounds.

The initial order of detention under Section 3 of the MPDA Act need not specify the period of detention as the outer limit is fixed by the State Government after receiving the Advisory Board's report under Section 12. Grounds of detention that are severable under Section 5A, such as past history, do not vitiate the order if the remaining grounds are valid. The detaining authority's satisfaction regarding the detenu being a dangerous person affecting public order can be based on a single crime and in-camera statements, even if the offence is bailable. Non-supply of translation does not cause prejudice if the detenu understands the language of the supplied documents.

What binds this Court is the decisions in the case of T. Devaki and Mrs. Harpreettt Kaur Harvinder Singh Bedi(supra). In the light of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Makhan Singh (supra), the outer limit of the detention can be fixed by the State Government only after opinion of the Advisory Board is received. That what section 12 of the said Act provides. Therefore, the even if the original order of detention ... does not mention the period of detention, it will not vitiate the order of detention. Detenu is a notorious criminal. The complainant has specifically stated in his complaint about the threatening by detenu. Not only that he was beaten and tried to take him to his office saying that "pyks bldks vkQhl esa ys tkdj lkys dk xse ctk Mkyrs gS". Complainant anyhow ran away from the clutches of detenu and saved him. Moreover, incamera statements of witnesses A and B show that detenu is a dangerous person. ground no. 5 in which history of the petitioner is given. Past history is nothing but in addition to the main ground against the detenu. The detaining authority has taken into consideration the ground no. 4 mentioned in the impugned show cause notice and order. Hence, in view of the judgment of Division Bench in the case of Ramesh Balu Chavan Vs. The Commissioner of Police and ors., ground can be severed and only on that ground, the detention order cannot be quashed and set aside.

Detention order under Section 3(1) of the MPDA Act passed by Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City on 22.08.2017. Report sent to State Government on 28.08.2017; approval granted on 29.08.2017. Reference made to Advisory Board on 29.08.2017. Advisory Board submitted its opinion on 05.10.2017. State Government confirmed the detention order for a period of 12 months on 06.10.2017. Petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 946 of 2017 challenging the detention. Heard and finally decided on 06.08.2018.

• 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: 3, 12, 5A, 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 10, 12(1)
• Indian Penal Code, 1860: 294, 506B, 341, 323, 34