ARJUN S/O RATAN GAIKWAD versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2024] 12 S.C.R. 637 · Decided: 11-12-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 637 : 2024 INSC 968
Arjun S/o Ratan Gaikwad
v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others
(Criminal Appeal No. 5204 of 2024)
11 December 2024
[B.R. Gavai* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Appellant was detained under s.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 to 
prevent him from indulging in the activities of bootlegging thereby 
preventing the maintenance of peace. High Court dismissed the 
writ petition filed by the appellant.
Headnotes†
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) – 
Appellant was detained to prevent him from indulging in the 
activities of bootlegging thereby preventing the maintenance 
of peace – Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority 
that the activities of the appellant were prejudicial to the 
maintenance of public order, if were substantiated: 
Held: No – None of the activities which form the basis of the 
detention order can be said to be affecting public order – All the 
six cases on the basis of which the proposal for detention was 
passed were with regard to selling of illicit liquor – Though six cases 
were registered, the Excise Authority did not find it necessary to 
arrest the appellant even on a single occasion – Every breach of 
peace does not lead to public disorder – When a person can be 
dealt with in exercise of powers to maintain the law and order, 
unless the acts of the proposed detainee are the ones which have 
the tendency of disturbing the public order a resort to preventive 
detention which is a harsh measure would not be permissible – 
As to whether a case would amount to threat to the public order 
* Author
638
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
or as to whether it would be such which can be dealt with by the 
ordinary machinery in exercise of its powers of maintaining law 
and order would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each 
case – Impugned judgment of the High Court as also the order 
of detention passed by the detaining authority and the order of 
confirmation, quashed and set aside. [Paras 6, 13, 15, 20]
Case Law Cited
Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and Another [1966] 1 SCR 
709 : 1965 INSC 175; Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana and 
Others [2023] 11 SCR 958 : (2023) 9 SCC 587 – relied on.
List of Acts
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.
List of Keywords
Preventive detention; Detention order; Detained; Detaining 
authority; Bootlegging; Preventing the maintenance of peace; 
Selling of illicit liquor; Excise Authority; Breach of peace; Public 
disorder; Proposed detainee; Harsh measure; Public order; Law 
and order; Threat to the public order; Ordinary machinery; Powers 
of maintaining law and order; Subjective satisfaction; Activities 
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
5204 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2024 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in CRWP No. 698 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv., Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Nishant 
Sharma, Ankur S. Savadikar, Advs. for the Appellant.
Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, 
Aditya Krishna, Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh Dubey, Advs. for the 
Respondents.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
639
Arjun S/o Ratan Gaikwad v. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
B.R. Gavai, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
The appeal is taken up for hearing.
3.	
This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 20th August 
2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature 
at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition No. 698 
of 2024, thereby dismissing the petition filed by the appellant herein.
4.	
Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal are as under:
4.1	 The District Magistrate, Parbhani passed an order under 
Section 3(2) of the The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous 
Activities of Slumlords, Boo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.