Piram Alias Premdas S/O. Ramaji ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9530 Bom

                                               1              criwp931.17.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 931 OF 2017

            Piram @ Premdas Ramaji Girhepunje,
            aged about 60 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
            R/o. Ward No.3, Kharbi, Thana Petrol Pump,
            Bhandara, Tq. & Distt. Bhandara......                          PETITIONER

                                 ...VERSUS...

 1.         State of Maharashtra,
            through Secretary, Home Department
            (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai.

 2.      District Magistrate / Collector,
         Bhandara, Dsitrict - Bhandara                    .......        RESPONDENTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri D.V.Mahajan, Advocate for Petitioner
 Shri M.K.Pathan, APP for Respondents
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE AND
                                        M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
                                           th
                           Date       : 12     DECEMBER, 2017 .

 JUDGMENT (P.C.)

Rule made returnable forthwith.

Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels

appearing for the parties.

2] The order of detention was sent for approval of

the State Government under Section 3(3) of the Maharashtra

Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords,

Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video

2 criwp931.17.odt

Pirates Act, 1981. In the absence of approval from the State

Government, the order remains in operation for a period of 12

days from the date of passing of the order.

3] On 07.09.2017, the order was passed and in the

reply filed by the respondents, it is stated in para 7 that the

State Government has not approved the same and it has

been returned back with queries of technical deficiencies in

the proposal and the order. The period of 12 days has

expired.

4] In view of above, the petition needs to be

allowed and the following order is to be passed.

5] Writ petition is allowed. The order of detention

dated 07.09.2017 passed by the respondent No.2 against the

petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. Since it is

informed that the petitioner was not actually detained, hence,

the question of passing any order of releasing the petitioner

from detention does not at all arise.

Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order

as to costs.

                                JUDGE                         JUDGE
 Rvjalit