9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of "public order" or merely to "law and order." 2. Whether the detention order exceeding three months was valid under the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, and Drug Offenders Act, 1981. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Public Order vs. Law and Order: The appellant argued that the detenu's activities were prejudicial only to the maintenance of "law and order" and not to "public order." The Court noted the distinction between "public order" and "law and order," citing various precedents. It emphasized that the degree and extent of the reach of the act upon society determine whether an act affects "public order" or "law and order." The Court referred to several judgments, including *Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar*, *Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal*, and *Kanu Biswas v. State of West Bengal*, to illustrate the difference between the two concepts. The Court found that the detenu's activities, such as attempting to run over police personnel, causing injury to a pedestrian, and creating a fear psychosis among witnesses, were not merely "bootlegging" but had a broader impact on public tranquility and the even tempo of society. The activities created a feeling of insecurity among the general public and law enforcement agencies, thereby disturbing "public order." The Court concluded that the detenu's actions fell within the scope of the deeming provision of Section 2(a) of the Act, which defines activities prejudicial to the maintenance of "public order." 2. Validity of Detention Order Exceeding Three Months: The appellant argued that the detention order was invalid because it exceeded three months, contrary to the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Act. The Court clarified that Section 3(1) allows the State Government to make an order of detention if it is satisfied that it is necessary to prevent a person from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of "public order." Section 3(2) deals with the delegation of powers by the State Government to the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, specifying that the period of delegation should not exceed three months in the first instance. The Court explained that the proviso to Section 3(2) pertains to the period of delegation of powers and not to the period of detention of the detenu. The maximum period of detention is prescribed under Section 13 of the Act, which allows detention for a period confirmed under Section 12. Therefore, the Court found the argument regarding the invalidity of the detention order due to its duration to be without merit. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the appeal and the writ petition, affirming the validity of the detention order. It held that the detenu's activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of "public order" and that the detention order did not suffer from any infirmity regarding its duration. The judgments of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court were upheld.
|
