Bombay High Court
Ramdhan Namdev Jadhav vs The District Magistrate And Others on 27 March, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:10321-DB
wp-244-2025-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.244 OF 2025
Ramdhan Namdev Jadhav
Age: 55 years,
R/o. Kavtha Kej Tanda,
Ausa, District Latur. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. District Magistrate,
Latur.
2. The State of Maharashtra
(Through the Secretary Home
Department (Spl.),
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3. The Superintendent
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
Central Prison,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. .. Respondents
...
Mr. Rupesh A. Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A. M. Phule, APP for respondents/State.
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 27 MARCH 2025
JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)
. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Rupesh A Jaiswal for the petitioner
and learned APP Mr. A. M. Phule for the respondents - State.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally
with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.
wp-244-2025-J.odt
3. The petitioner challenges the detention order dated 31.12.2024
bearing D.O. No.2023/MAG/MPDA/Desk-2/WS-483 passed by respondent
No.1 as well as the approval order dated 10.01.2025 and the
confirmation order dated 06.02.2025 passed by respondent No.2, by
invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken us through the
impugned orders and the material which was supplied to the petitioner
by the detaining authority after passing of the order. He submits that
though several offences were registered against the petitioner, yet for
the purpose of passing the impugned order, only one offence was
considered i.e. Crime No.162 of 2024 registered with Bhada Police
Station, Taluka Ausa, District Latur for the offence punishable under
Section 65(f) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, under Section 123 of
the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. It appears that in respect of Crime No.162
of 2024, the CA report has not been received, as it is not stated how
much percentage of ethyl alcohol was found in the substance. Therefore,
in fact, the material placed before the detaining authority has not been
considered by her properly. There was no subjective satisfaction arrived
at before passing of the order or to arrive at the conclusion that the
petitioner is a bootlegger. The statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' would
show that at the most law and order situation would have arisen and not
wp-244-2025-J.odt
the public order. The order being illegal deserves to be quashed and set
aside.
5. Per contra, the learned APP strongly supports the action taken
against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is a dangerous
person as defined under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities
of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons and
Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the "MPDA Act"). The
detaining authority has relied on the two in-camera statements and the
subjective satisfaction has been arrived at. There is no illegality in the
procedure adopted while recording the in-camera statements of the
witnesses. Due to the terror created by the petitioner, people are not
coming forward to lodge report against him and, therefore, it affects the
public order. Learned APP relied on the affidavit-in-reply of Ms. Varsha
Thakur - Ghuge, the District Magistrate, Latur/detaining authority. She
supports the detention order passed by her and tries to demonstrate as
to how she had arrived at the subjective satisfaction. She further states
that her order has been approved by the State Government and also by
the Advisory Board. Thereafter, the confirmation has been given. The
statements of in-camera witnesses 'A' and 'B' show that ordinary law
would not have curtailed the bootlegging activities of the petitioner.
Therefore, no fault can be found in the impugned order.
wp-244-2025-J.odt
6. Before considering the case, we would like to take note of the
legal position as is emerging in the following decisions :-
(i) Nenavath Bujji etc. Vs. State of Telangana and others,
[2024 SCC OnLine SC 367],
(ii) Ameena Begum Vs. The State of Tamilnadu and Ors.,
[2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743];
(iii) Kanu Biswas Vs. State of West Bengal, [1972 (3) SCC
831] wherein reference was made to the decision in Dr. Ram
Manohar Lohia vs. State of Bihar and Ors. [1966 (1) SCR 709];
(iv) Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh Vs. M.M. Mehta, [1995
(3) SCC 237];
(v) Pushkar Mukherjee and Ors. Vs. The State of West
Bengal, [AIR 1970 SC 852];
(vi) Phulwari Jagdambaprasad Pathak Vs. R. H. Mendonca
and Ors., (2000 (6) SCC 751) and;
(vii) Smt. Hemlata Kantilal Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra
and another, [(1981) 4 SCC 647].
7. Taking into consideration the legal position as summarized above,
it is to be noted herein as to whether the detaining authority while
passing the impugned order had arrived at the subjective satisfaction
and whether the procedure as contemplated has been complied with or
not. In Nenavath Bujji (Supra) itself it has been reiterated by the
wp-244-2025-J.odt
Hon'ble Supreme Court that illegal detention orders cannot be sustained
and, therefore, strict compliance is required to be made, as it is a
question of liberty of a citizen. At the outset, it is to be noted that the
detaining authority has considered only one offence i.e. Crime No.162 of
2024 for passing the detention order. Perusal of paragraph No.4 of
grounds of detention would show that in respect of Crime No.162 of
2024, the CA report has not been considered by the detaining authority
while passing the detention order. The material was not sufficient before
the detaining authority to categorize the petitioner as bootlegger. Further,
the material on record was not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the
activities of the petitioner were creating public order situation. At the
most, even if we consider that he was selling illicit liquor or
manufacturing it, then it would have created law and order situation.
Further, it appears that Chapter Case No.98 of 2022 was proposed
under Section 93 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, however, it is not
stated whether final order was passed or not and if at all it was passed,
then why upon disobedience or recurring of the offence, the bond that
was got executed from the petitioner was not put for execution i.e. the
amount under the same was not recovered. Section 93 of the
Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 prescribes for demand of security for
good behaviour to be taken from such person. Section 93 (1) of the said
Act empowers a District Magistrate or a Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
wp-244-2025-J.odt
whenever he receives information that any person within the local limits
of his jurisdiction habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the
commission of any offence punishable under this Act, such Magistrate
may require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to
execute a bond, with sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, as
the Magistrate may direct. If the said procedure would have been taken
to the logical end, the Magistrate i.e. respondent No.1 was
entitled/empowered to take such bond of good behaviour maximum for a
period of three years. Further, sub-section (2) of Section 93 of the said
Act prescribes that the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure would
be applicable to any proceedings under sub-section (1) of Section 93 as
if bond referred to therein were a bond required to be executed under
Section 110 of the said Code. Section 110 of the Code then prescribes
the procedure for breach of such bond. That means there is inbuilt
mechanism in the Maharashtra Prohibition Act to curtail the activities of a
habitual offender. These proceedings under the Act were not taken to the
logical end. Therefore, the statement by respondent No.1 that ordinary
law would not have curbed the activities of the petitioner and only the
detention order would have taken care of said activities in the public
interest cannot be upheld.
8. Statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' would show that they both had
gone to meet the petitioner and then they had advised the petitioner that
wp-244-2025-J.odt
he should not sell country liquor, as it is causing destruction of marital life
of many persons, destroying the youths and then the petitioner after
making his associates consume liquor asked them to raise quarrel with
the witnesses and then those co-accused went in front of the house of
these witnesses, abused and threatened them. The statements of these
two witnesses are in fact copy paste. Two persons cannot speak in the
same language and this basic fact ought to have been taken note of by
the detaining authority. When the detaining authority has not taken note
of the copy paste statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B', it shows non
application of mind.
9. Thus, taking into consideration the above observations and the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, at the most, the statements as well
as the offences allegedly committed would reveal that the petitioner had
created law and order situation and not disturbance to the public order.
Though the Advisory Board had approved the detention of the petitioner,
yet we are of the opinion that there was no material before the detaining
authority to categorize the petitioner as a dangerous person or
bootlegger.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Hence, following order is passed :-
wp-244-2025-J.odt
ORDER
I) The Writ Petition stands allowed.
II) The detention order dated 31.12.2024 bearing D.O.
No.2023/MAG/MPDA/Desk-2/WS-483 passed by respondent No.1 as
well as the approval order dated 10.01.2025 and the confirmation
order dated 06.02.2025 passed by respondent No.2, are hereby
quashed and set aside.
III) Petitioner - Ramdhan Namdev Jadhav shall be released
forthwith, if not required in any other offence.
IV) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
[ ROHIT W. JOSHI ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
scm
