Smruti Waghdhare vs. Joint Director, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit

Facts

The petitioner, mother of the detenue Sanket @ Khoonkhar Dadya Nandu Toradmal, filed a writ petition challenging a detention order dated November 11, 2024, issued by the Commissioner of Police, Nashik, 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 (MPDA Act). The detenue was in judicial custody at the time of the detention order. The grounds for challenge included the delayed service of grounds of detention and relied-upon documents, the detaining authority's failure to consider the likelihood of the detenue being released on bail, and the non-supply of a victim's medical certificate, which allegedly impaired the detenue's right to make an effective representation.

Held

The Court held that the detention order was not vitiated on the first ground. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and Anr. Vs. Dimple Happy Dhakad, the Court found no statutory obligation for contemporaneous service of grounds of detention and relied-upon documents, provided there was no inaction or negligence by the detaining authority. The delay of one day in serving the grounds was deemed acceptable. Regarding the second issue, the Court held that the detaining authority had not committed any error in passing the detention order while the petitioner was in custody. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court emphasized that a detention order can be passed against a person in custody if the detaining authority is aware of the custody, has reason to believe there's a possibility of release on bail, and is satisfied that the detenu is likely to indulge in prejudicial activities upon release. The Court found that the detaining authority had rationally applied its mind and reached subjective satisfaction. On the third ground, the Court held that the victim's medical certificate was not a vital document, and its non-supply did not affect the petitioner's right to make an effective representation or violate Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The Court concluded that there were no merits in the petition and no legal infirmity in the detention and committal orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the detention order is vitiated due to the delayed service of the grounds of detention and relied-upon documents upon the petitioner, contrary to Section 8(1) of the MPDA Act and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the detention order is vitiated because the detaining authority, despite being aware of the petitioner's judicial custody, failed to record its satisfaction regarding the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and indulging in prejudicial activities? 3. Whether the non-supply of the victim's medical certificate from C.R. No. 273 of 2024 to the petitioner vitiated the detention order by impairing the right to make an effective representation? Petitioner's Arguments: - The detention order is vitiated because the grounds of detention and relied-upon documents were not served contemporaneously with the detention order, violating statutory and constitutional mandates. - The detaining authority failed to apply its mind to the fact that the petitioner was in custody and did not record satisfaction about the imminent likelihood of bail and subsequent prejudicial activities. - The non-supply of the victim's medical certificate, a crucial document, prejudiced the petitioner's right to make an effective representation. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The delay in serving the grounds of detention was within the permissible limits and did not amount to inaction or negligence, citing Supreme Court judgments. - The detaining authority's satisfaction regarding the likelihood of release on bail and future prejudicial activities is subjective and based on available material, which cannot be lightly interfered with by the Court. - The medical certificate was not a vital document, and its non-supply did not impair the right to make an effective representation.