Bombay High Court
Feroz Khaja Mohammad Shaikh vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 12 September, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2025:BHC-AS:38104-DB
Digitally
signed by
GAURI GAURI AMIT
GAEKWAD
AMIT Date:
GAEKWAD 2025.09.12
WP-1397-2025.odt
18:46:42
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1397 OF 2025
Feroz Khaja Mohammad Shaikh )
Age 45 years, an Indian Inhabitant, )
residing at Vishnu Nagar Station Wadi, )
Sinnar Phata Nasik Road, Nasik ) ....Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra )
Through Secretary, )
Home Department (Special), )
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 )
2. The Commissioner of Police )
Nashik City, Nashik )
3. The Superintendent of Nashik Road )
Centre Prison, Nashik ) ....Respondents
----
Ms. Aisha Z. Ansari a/w. Ms. Nasreen Ayubi for the Petitioner.
Mr. S.V. Gavand, Addl. PP for the Respondent - State.
----
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 26th AUGUST, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 12th SEPTEMBER, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) :
1. This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
Gauri Gaekwad 1 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
India and under Section 3(2) of the 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 (hereinafter referred to as "the MPDA
Act"). The Petitioner seeks to challenge the order of detention dated
3rd February, 2025. This Petition was filed on 10 th March, 2025. The earlier
Bench, which heard this matter on 17th March, 2025, issued Rule. Though
there is no formal order, the parties waived service of notice on Rule.
Hence, this matter was heard finally on 25th August, 2025 and 26th August,
2025, for about 2 ½ hours.
2. During the course of the hearing, the learned Addl. PP
tendered a compilation of documents (page nos.1 to 82), which was taken
on record and marked as 'X-1' for identification.
3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner tendered a copy of the
representation dated 25th February, 2025 (11 pages), one copy tendered to
the Chairman, Advisory Committee and simultaneously tendered to the
Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra. Both these
Authorities have been served with the identical representations. Along with
Gauri Gaekwad 2 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
the said representations, the documents marked as Exhibit 'A' and Exhibit
'B' (page nos.12 to 33), were also tendered in the said compilation (Page
nos.1 to 33), which is taken on record and marked as 'X-2' for
identification.
4. As recorded above, we heard the learned Advocate for the
Petitioner for more than two hours and the learned Addl. PP addressed us
for about 20 minutes. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner tendered
brief written notes of submissions, which are taken on record and marked
as 'X-3' for identification. The learned Addl. PP tendered a single sheet of
dates and events for ready reference, which is taken on record and marked
as 'X-4' for identification.
5. The Petitioner relied upon the following judgments :
(i) Vimalchand Jawantraj Jain v/s. Shri Pradhan and
Ors.1;
(ii) Hetchin Haokip v/s. State of Manipur and Ors.2;
(iii) Jaseela Shaji v/s. Union of India and Ors.3
1. (1979) 4 SCC 401
2. (2018) 9 SCC 562
3. (2024) 9 SCC 53
Gauri Gaekwad 3 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
6. The learned Addl. PP relied upon the judgment delivered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in David Patrick Ward and Anr. v/s. Union of
India and Ors.4
7. Considering that the learned Advocate for the Petitioner has
not cited a single judgment delivered in a case governed by the provisions
of the MPDA Act, and since the judgments relied upon pertain to cases
under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling
Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "COFEPOSA") and the
National Security Act, 1980, that we deem it appropriate to first advert to
the provisions of the MPDA Act, which govern the present case.
8. Article 22 of the Constitution of India pertains to protection
against arrest and detention in certain cases. Article 22 reads as under :
22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain
cases -
(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody
without being informed, as soon as may be, of the
grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to
consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his
choice.
4. (1992) 4 SCC 154
Gauri Gaekwad 4 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
(2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody
shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a
period of twenty four hours of such arrest excluding the
time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to
the Court of the magistrate and no such person shall be
detained in custody beyond the said period without the
authority of a magistrate.
(3) Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply -
(a) to any person who for the time being is an
enemy alien; or
(b) to any person who is arrested or detained under
any law providing for preventive detention.
(4) No law providing for preventive detention shall
authorise the detention of a person for a longer period
than three months unless -
(a) an Advisory Board consisting of persons who
are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed
as, Judges of a High Court has reported before the
expiration of the said period of three months that
there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such
detention :
Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall
authorise the detention of any person beyond the
maximum period prescribed by any law made by
Parliament under sub-clause (b) of clause (7); or
(b) such person is detained in accordance with the
provisions of any law made by Parliament under
sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (7).
(5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an order
made under any law providing for preventive detention,
Gauri Gaekwad 5 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be,
communicate to such person the grounds on which the
order has been made and shall afford him the earliest
opportunity of making a representation against the order.
(6) Nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority
making any such order as is referred to in that clause to
disclose facts which such authority considers to be
against the public interest to disclose.
(7) Parliament may by law prescribe -
(a) the circumstances under which, and the class or
classes of cases in which, a person may be detained
for a period longer than three months under any law
providing for preventive detention without
obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board in
accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (a) of
clause (4);
(b) the maximum period for which any person may
in any class or classes of cases be detained under
any law providing for preventive detention; and
(c) the procedure to be followed by an Advisory
Board in an inquiry under sub-clause (a) of clause
(4).
9. The provisions of the MPDA Act, relevant to the present case,
are as under :
Section 3. Power to make orders detaining certain
persons -
(1) The State Government may, if satisfied with respect
to any person that with a view to preventing him from
Gauri Gaekwad 6 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order, it is necessary so to do, make an order
directing that such person be detained.
(2) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or
likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the
jurisdiction of a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of
Police, the State Government is satisfied that it is
necessary so to do, it may, by order in writing, direct,
that during such period as may be specified in the order
such District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may
also if satisfied as provided in sub-section (1), exercise
the powers conferred by the said sub-section:
Provided that the period specified in the order made by
the State Government under this sub-section shall not, in
the first instance, exceed (six months) but the State
Government may, if satisfied as aforesaid that it is
necessary so to do, amend such order to extend such
period from time to time by any period not exceeding
(six months) at any one time.
(3) When any order is made under this section by an
officer mentioned in sub-section (2), he shall forthwith
report the fact to the State Government, together with the
grounds on which the order has been made and such
other particulars as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the
matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more
than twelve days after the making thereof, unless, in the
meantime, it has been approved by the State
Government.
xxxxxxxxxxx
Section 5A. Grounds of detention severable -
Where a person has been detained in pursuance of an
Gauri Gaekwad 7 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
order of detention under section 3 which has been made
on two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be
deemed to have been made separately on each of such
grounds and accordingly -
(a) such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or
inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds is
or are -
(i) vague,
(ii) non-existent,
(iii) not relevant,
(iv) not connected or not proximately connected with
such person, or
(v) invalid for any other reason whatsoever,
and it is not, therefore, possible to hold that the State
Government or an officer mentioned in sub-section (2) of
section 3 making such order would have been satisfied as
provided in section 3 with reference to the remaining
ground or grounds and made the order of detention;
(b) the State Government or such officer making the
order of detention shall be deemed to have made the
order of detention under the said section 3 after being
satisfied as provided in that section with reference to the
remaining ground or grounds.
xxxxxxxxxxx
8. Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to
persons affected by the order -
Gauri Gaekwad 8 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
(1) When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention
order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as
may be, but not later than five days from the date of
detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the
order has been made and shall afford him the earliest
opportunity of making a representation against the order
to the State Government.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall require the authority
to disclose facts which it considers to be against the
public interest to disclose.
9. Constitution of Advisory Boards -
(1) The State Government shall, whenever necessary,
constitute one or more Advisory Boards for the purposes
of this Act.
(2) Every such Board shall consist of a Chairman and
two other members, who are, or have been, judges of any
High Court or who are qualified under the Constitution
of India to be appointed as judges of a High Court.
10. Reference to Advisory Boards -
In every case where a detention order has been made
under this Act, the State Government shall within three
weeks from the date of detention of a person under the
order, place before the Advisory Board constituted by it
under section 9 the grounds on which the order has been
made and the representation, if any, made by the person
affected by the order, and in the case where the order has
made by an officer, also the report by such officer under
sub-section (3) of section 3.
Gauri Gaekwad 9 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
11. Procedure of Advisory Boards -
(1) The Advisory Board shall, after considering the
materials placed before it and, after calling for such
further information as it may deem necessary from the
State Government or from any person called for the
purpose through the State Government or from the
person concerned, and if, in any particular case, the
Advisory Board considers it essential so to do or if the
person concerned desires to be heard, after hearing him
in person, submit its report to the State Government,
within seven weeks from the date of detention of the
person concerned.
(2) The report of the Advisory Board shall specify in a
separate part thereof the opinion of the Advisory Board
as to whether or not there is sufficient cause for the
detention of the person concerned.
(3) When there is a difference of opinion among the
members forming the Advisory Board, the opinion of the
majority of such members shall be deemed to be the
opinion of the Board.
(4) The proceedings of the Advisory Board and its report,
excepting that part of the report in which the opinion of
the Advisory Board is specified, shall be confidential.
(5) Nothing in this section shall entitle any person
against whom a detention order has been made to appear
by any legal practitioner in any matter connected with
the reference to the Advisory Board.
12. Action upon report of Advisory Board -
(1) In any case where the Advisory Board has reported
that there is, in its opinion, sufficient cause for the
Gauri Gaekwad 10 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
detention of a person, the State Government may confirm
the detention order and continue the detention of the
person concerned for such period, not exceeding the
maximum period prescribed by section 13, as it thinks
fit.
(2) In any case where the Advisory Board has reported
that there is, in its opinion, no sufficient cause for the
detention of the person concerned, the State Government
shall revoke the detention order and cause the person to
be released forthwith.
13. Maximum period of detention -
The maximum period for which any person may be
detained, in pursuance of any detention order made under
this Act which has been confirmed under section 12,
shall be (twelve months) from the date of detention.
14. Revocation of detention orders -
(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 21 of
the Maharashtra General Clauses Act, a detention order
may, at any time, be revoked or modified by the State
Government, notwithstanding that the order has been
made by an officer mentioned in sub-section (2) of
section 3.
(2) The revocation or expiry of a detention order shall
not bar the making of a fresh detention order under
section 3 against the same person, in any case, where
fresh facts have arisen after the date of revocation or
expiry, on which the State Government or an officer, as
the case may be, is satisfied that such an order should be
made.
Gauri Gaekwad 11 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
10. The ready reference chart of dates and events provided by the
learned Addl. PP, and which are not disputed, is scanned and reproduced
hereunder :
Gauri Gaekwad 12 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
11. Considering the grounds for challenge set out by the Petitioner
below paragraph 5 (i) to (vii), we need to deal with the contention of the
Petitioner that his representation is pending before the State Government.
In an argument, over almost two hours, the learned Advocate for the
Petitioner advanced this submission as her last and final ground,
contending that the Petitioner's representation dated 25th February, 2025,
made against the detention order, is still pending. However, neither was any
request made to direct the State Government to decide the said
representation, nor was any such prayer included in the present Petition.
For clarity, we are reproducing both the prayers put forth by the Petitioner
below paragraph 8, as under :
PRAYERS IN THE PETITION
(a) That this Honourable Court be pleased to issued a
Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction quashing and setting aside the said
order of detention No. bering No.DO/2025/MPDA/DET-
01/CB-31, dated 03.02.2025, and be pleased to direct
that the detenu HUSSAIN FEROZ SHAIKH be set at
liberty;
(b) For such further and other orders as the case may
require.
Nevertheless, we would deal with the aforesaid contention in
the light of the provisions of the MPDA Act at a later stage in this
Gauri Gaekwad 13 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
judgment.
12. The scheme for issuing the detention order and the remedies
available to the detainee, are well prescribed under the MPDA Act. In the
present case, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 3 are referable since the
Commissioner of Police, Nashik, dealt with this case invoking sub-section
(2) and passed an order under sub-section (3), on 3rd February, 2025.
13. The sequence of dates and events would clearly indicate that
an FIR bearing no.406 of 2024 was registered on 4th September, 2024 with
the Nashik Road Police Station, Nashik. Keeping in view the reputation of
the Petitioner of indulging in crimes, which is well described in paragraph
nos.1 to 3, 3(A), 3(B), 4(A) and subsequent narration in the impugned
order, no victim was willing to come forward and record a statement.
However, two victims came forward and recorded their statements "in-
camera" on 14th January, 2025. The verification of their statements took
place on 15th January, 2025. The proposal for detention of the Petitioner
was sent by the Nashik Road Police Station on 16th January, 2025. The
Commissioner of Police, Nashik considered the entire material placed
before him and after a detailed assessment and appreciation of the records,
Gauri Gaekwad 14 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
passed a detailed and reasoned order dated 03/02/2025, running into
19 pages.
14. In the light of the above, the contention of the Petitioner that,
after the offence was registered on 4 th September, 2024, a huge delay was
caused by the Police Authorities in passing the detention order, would not
be a sustainable contention. It cannot be overlooked that after the victims
mustered courage to record their statements, in relation to the events that
occurred in the first and second week of December, 2024, we do not find
that there has been such delay in recording the statements of the two
witnesses on 14th January, 2025 in relation to the incidents that took place
at Subhash Road in the first week of December, 2024 and near Vihitgaon
Bridge in the second week of December, 2024.
15. The next ground taken by the Petitioner is that though the FIR
contains an averment that the detainee gave a blow on the forehead of the
Complainant with a koyta causing a profusely bleeding injury requiring
five stitches, a CT brain scan was not done. We find that this contention
does not deserve consideration at this stage since this aspect would be
looked into by the Trial Court when the trial commences with reference to
Gauri Gaekwad 15 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
the FIR no.406 of 2024.
16. The third ground raised by the Petitioner is that the in-camera
statements are false and fabricated. We do not find any merit in this
submission, keeping in view that two witnesses have recorded their
in-camera statements and have not come forward to retract such a
statement or contend that their statements were wrongly recorded or that
they have never made such a statement. The entire material available
before the Detaining Authority was to the subjective satisfaction of the said
Authority which has analysed the material threadbare and has passed a
19 pages well reasoned and detailed order.
17. The fourth ground raised by the Petitioner is that the Detaining
Authority should have considered the circumstances and should have taken
a call as to whether the preventive detention was necessary or required. In
our view, since detention amounts to restricting the freedom and personal
liberty of an individual, it is imperative that the Detaining Authority should
pass the order of detention, as a last resort.
Gauri Gaekwad 16 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
18. In this aspect, we find that the Detaining Authority has noticed
that the Petitioner has been consistently indulging in various acts/serious
offences such as voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons,
voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful restraint, intentional insult with the
intent to provoke breach of peace, attempt to murder, possession of arms
without a license, violation of prohibitory order, assault with criminal force
upon a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty, disobedience to an
order duly promulgated by a public servant, criminal intimidation,
extortion, robbery, dacoity, criminal conspiracy, committing an offence
under Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4), being member of unlawful assembly,
rioting, armed with deadly weapon, committing an offence under Section
118 (1) and 118 (2) of the BNS Act and with a common intention under
Section 3(5) of the said Act. Several other grave and serious instances of
crimes and dangerous activities, have been discussed by the concerned
Authority, in the impugned order.
19. It was also noted that the Petitioner has committed offences
under Section 307 (two cases), 323, 326, Section 34 of the IPC, read with
Section 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, read with Section 135 of the MPDA Act.
Several cases were registered under the provisions of MCOCA Act. Few
Gauri Gaekwad 17 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
cases of committing offence against women, have also been registered with
the Police Station.
In these circumstances, we do not find that the fourth ground
deserves any consideration.
20. The fifth ground has been strenuously canvassed by the
Petitioner by contending that once an order was made under Section 3(3) of
the MPDA Act, the said aspect must be reported to the State Government
immediately and unless the said order is approved by the State
Government, such order would not continue beyond 12 days from the date
of its passing.
21. The undisputed sequence of events are that the detention order
was passed on 3rd February, 2025. The same was forwarded by email on the
same day, i.e., 3rd February, 2025. A physical copy was served on the
Government by the Detaining Authority under Section 3(3) on 7 th February,
2025, i.e., on the fourth day after the order of detention was passed. The
Petitioner was detained on 8th February, 2025. The Government approved
the order on 12th February, 2025.
Gauri Gaekwad 18 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
In view of the above, we do not find that the fifth ground could
be entertained in the light of undisputed factors.
22. In the sixth ground, the Petitioner contended that the offences
allegedly committed by him and which have been considered by the
Detaining Authority while passing the impugned order of detention, should
have been verified by the Authority concerned. Whether five stitches were
applied by the Doctor on the forehead of the victim? Moreover, such an
incident may amount to a breach of law, but would not amount to a breach
of public order.
23. We are not impressed by ground no.6 for the reason that a
detailed and reasoned order passed by the Competent Authority on the
basis of the record available before it, can not be doubted. Merely because
the Petitioner feels that a different view is possible, would not mean that
the view taken by the Competent Authority on the basis of a well reasoned
order, could be branded as being perverse (Syed Yakoob v/s. K.S.
Radhakrishnan5 and Surya Dev Rai v/s. Ram Chander Rai6).
5. AIR 1964 SC 477
6. AIR 2003 SC 3044 : 2003 (6) SCC 682
Gauri Gaekwad 19 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
24. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has contended in the
open Court that the seventh ground raised by the Petitioner is the best
ground. She submits in the light of the view taken in Vimalchand Jain
(Supra) and Jaseela Shaji (Supra), that his representation was not
considered by the State Government.
25. In Vimalchand Jain (Supra), the rules provided two distinct
safeguards to a detainee. One is that his case must be referred to an
Advisory Board for its opinion, if it is sought to detain him for a period
longer than three months. The second safeguard was that he should be
accorded the earliest opportunity of making a representation. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court concluded that there was no material available to show that
the State had considered the representation of the Petitioner before making
the confirmation order, under the relevant rules.
26. In Jaseela Shaji (Supra), it was concluded that though all
documents need not be furnished to the detainee, the documents relied
upon by the Detaining Authority should be tendered to the detainee to make
an effective representation. Failure or even delay in furnishing those
documents would amount to denial of the right to make an effective
Gauri Gaekwad 20 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
representation. By referring to the provisions of the COFEPOSA, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the representations were received
on 15th May, 2024 and 22nd May, 2024, there was a delay of 27 days in
deciding the representation by the Central Government and 20 days by the
Detaining Authority. No explanation as to what caused such a delay, is
offered in the counter affidavit. It was, therefore, held in the light of
Vijaykumar v/s. State of Jammu and Kashmir 7, that the State Government
must ensure that the representation is transmitted quickly to the Central
Government and should be decided expeditiously. Such representations can
be forwarded to the appropriate Authority, either by email or at least a
physical copy by speed post/A.D.
27. In the case in hands, which is covered by the provisions of the
MPDA Act, sub-section (3) of Section 3 mandates that when any order is
made under this Section by an Officer, he shall forthwith report the fact to
the State Government together with the grounds on which the order has
been made. Such order would not remain in force for more than 12 days
after its making, unless the State Government approves it. Under Section 8,
when a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the Authority
7. (1982) 2 SCC 43
Gauri Gaekwad 21 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
making the order shall, as soon as possible and not later than five days
from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the
order has been made and shall offer him the earliest opportunity to make a
representation against the order to the State Government.
28. It is undisputed that the impugned order, after being passed on
3rd February, 2025, and transmitted via email to the appropriate
Government on the same day, resulted in the detention of the Petitioner on
8th February, 2025. There is no averment by the Petitioner that he was not
communicated the grounds of detention. The Jail Superintendent has filed
an affidavit in reply dated 16th April, 2025. The detention order and the
committal order was received by the Jail from the Nashik Road Police
Station on 7th February, 2025 and the detainee was confined in the said
prison with effect from 8th February, 2025. The Petitioner tendered his
common representation to the Chairman, Advisory Committee, through
Section Officer, Section - 10, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya and
a copy to the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra. In
the said common representation, the Petitioner has put forth the following
three prayers :
(a) That this Hon'ble Advisory Board be please to
considered my representation of the petitioner under
Gauri Gaekwad 22 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
section 11 of the MPDA Act, and be please to give a
report in favour of the petitioner and the State
Government be please to release the petitioner u/s. 12 of
MPDA Act;
(b) The State Government of Maharashtra be pleased to
consider the Petitioner's representation under Section 14
of the M.P.D.A. Act and be please to revoke the
impugned detention order passed against the Petitioner
dated 03/02/2025 by the Commissioner of Police Nashik
City, Nashik.
(c) That Advocate Aisha Zubair Ansari be please to allow
to appear on behalf of the petitioner.
29. Under Section 9, the State Government has to constitute
Advisory Boards and each such Board has to consist of a Chairman and
two such Members, who are, or have been, Judges of the High Court or are
qualified under the Constitution of India to be appointed as Judges of the
High Court.
30. The report of the Advisory Committee, comprising of Justice
A.S. Chandurkar (as His Lordship then was), as Chairman, Justice P.V.
Hardas (Retd.), and Justice R.M. Savant (Retd.), was submitted to the State
Government.
Gauri Gaekwad 23 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
31. Section 10 of the MPDA Act specifically empowers the State
Government to place before the Advisory Board, the grounds on which the
order has been made and the representation, if any, made by the person
affected by the order, as well as the report of the Officer who made the
order under Section 3(3). It is noteworthy that Section 10 mandates the
State Government to place before the Advisory Board, the grounds on
which the order has been made and his representation, if any, within three
weeks from the date of the detention of the person under the said order.
32. The Petitioner was detained on 8th February, 2025. The
Petitioner submitted a representation on 25th February, 2025. The same was
promptly placed before the Committee in compliance of Section 10 along
with the report of the Officer who made the order and the grounds on
which the order was passed. The three Members Advisory Board,
conducted a hearing on 26th February, 2025. The Petitioner as well as his
Advocate Ms. Ansari, were permitted to address the Advisory Board
through the video conferencing mode. In paragraph 5, it is specifically
stated that his representation (identically made to the State Government and
the Advisory Board) was also considered. The submissions of Ms. Ansari,
which are identical to the submissions made before our Court, were also
Gauri Gaekwad 24 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
recorded in paragraph 5. The Advisory Board perused the in-camera
statements recorded on 14th January, 2025 and which were verified on
15th January, 2025. The proposal for detaining the Petitioner submitted to
the Authority on 16th January, 2025, before passing the detention order on
3rd February, 2025, was also considered. The three Members Advisory
Board did not find any delay in the matter.
33. Under Section 11 of the MPDA Act, the Advisory Board
adhered to the prescribed procedure and has tendered its report. Under
Section 12 of the MPDA Act, after the Advisory Board submits its opinion,
showing sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the State
Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of
the person for a period not exceeding 12 months, as is prescribed under
Section 13. The Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra has
tendered an affidavit in reply dated 11th June, 2025 stating therein that the
identical representation dated 25th February, 2025 tendered by the Petitioner
to the Advisory Board, was placed before the Board on 26 th February, 2025
by the Government. After the Committee submitted its confidential report
dated 28th February, 2025 to the Government, which was considered by the
Government of Maharashtra, a confirmation order was passed on 6th March,
Gauri Gaekwad 25 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
2025 recording a finding that the detention should continue for 12 months
from the date of the detention of the Petitioner with effect from
8th February, 2025. The Additional Chief Secretary had considered the
report of the Advisory Board and proceedings which included the
representation of the Petitioner dated 25th February, 2025 and passed the
confirmation order on 6th March, 2025.
34. In so far as Section 14 is concerned, the Petitioner has neither
pleaded nor put forth any prayer for seeking any direction to the State
Government to Revoke the detention order. So also, no application has
been made by the Petitioner for seeking orders under Section 14. While
concluding her submissions, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, tried
to develop an argument that the Petitioner's representation be considered
under Section 14. We are afraid, this cannot be done. The representation of
the Petitioner dated 25th February, 2025 was tendered by him, upon
receiving the notice of hearing dated 20th February, 2025, from the
Advisory Board. He was advised to file his representation. He filed an
identical representation, which aspect is elaborately discussed herein
above. There is no representation of the Petitioner pending with the State.
Gauri Gaekwad 26 of 27
WP-1397-2025.odt
35. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this Petition.
This Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
36. In the event the Petitioner desires to file a representation under
Section 14, the same may be considered by the Competent Authority, if
permissible in law, on it's own merits. All contentions of the stake holders
are kept open, including the aspect of the maintainability of such a
representation.
(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Gauri Gaekwad 27 of 27
