STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. versus SHRI RAMCHANDRA RAMMILAN MISHRA @ PANDEY

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 295 · Decided: 22-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
A 
V. 
SHRI RAMCHANDRA RAMMILAN MISHRA @ PANDEY 
MARCH 22, 2004 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PA SA YAT, JJ.] 
B 
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (Bootleggers) Slumlords 
\ ~ 
and Drug Offenders Act, 1981; Section 3(2): Preventive detention of respondent 
on ground of maintenance of public order-Challenge to-High Court quashed C 
the order holding that the Board by not affording an opportunity of producing 
witnesses to detenu violated principles of natural justice-On appeal, Held: 
There was no obligation on the Advisory Board to summon witnesses but the 
detenu himself has to keep his witnesses present at the appointed time-
Detenu failed to produce witnesses-Since High Court proceeded on the wrong 
premise, its judgment could not be sustained-Competent authority could pass D 
fresh order of detention if the circumstances so warrant-However, no opinion 
expressed on the desirability or otherwise of passing afresh order-Constitution 
of India, 1950; Article 22(5). 
The Commissioner of Police, Mumbai in exercise of powers under 
Section 3(1.) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities E 
(Bootleggers) Slumlords and Drug Offenders Act passed order of detention 
of the respondent to prevent him from indulging in any activity in any 
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Detenu challenged 
the order of detention mainly on the ground that he was not afforded an 
opportunity of producing the witnesses before the Advisory Board to prove F 
his innocence. High Court quashed the order holding that there was 
violation of the pri.nciples of natural justice as welt-as th~ fundamental 
rights as protected under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Hence the 
present appeal. 
It was contended by the appellant-State that the detenu neither G 
produced any witness nor stated before the Advisory Board that he desired 
to examine witnesses; and that the High Court had overlooked the facts 
in arriving at its findings. 
Respondent-Detenu submitted that the High Court was right in 
295 
H 
296 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004) 3 S.C.R. 
A holding that the Advisory Board did not afford him opportunity to 
+ 
examine witnesses to prove his innocence. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. I. The detenu was free to produce the witnesses bdore the 
B Advisory Board in order to rebut the allegations levelled against him. 
However, there was no obligation on the Advisory Board to summon 
witnesses and it was for the detenu to keep his witness present at the 
appointed time. The approach of the High Court by proceeding on the 
L 
J 
basis as if there was such an obligation on the Advisory Board was not 
C correct. That apart, High Court had nothing concrete before it to surmise 
that any witness was present, and the failure on the part of the Advisory 
Board to verify about the same constituted denial of an opportunity. Hence 
the Judgment of the High Court is set aside. Since the detenu has been 
released pursuant to the judgment of the High court, it shall be open to 
the appellants or any competent authority to pass fresh order of detention 
D if the circumstances so warrant. However, it is clarified that no opinion 
has been expressed about the desirability or otherwise of passing any fresh 
order of detention. 1298-E; 299-D-E-FI 
A.K. Roy v. Union of India, 1198211 SCC 271, followed. 
E 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 746 
of 1998. 
From the Judgment and Order.dated 4.11.97 of the Bombay High Court 
in Crl. W.P. No. 486 of 1997. 
p 
Mukesh K. Giri, Manish Kumar Saran and Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure 
G 
for the Appellants. 
Ashok Kumar Sharma for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. State of Maharashtra in this appeal questions 
legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High 
Court quashing order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, 
Mumbai in purported exercise of powers under· Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra 
Prevention of Dangerous Activities (Bootleggers) Slumlords and Drug 
H Offenders) Act, 1981 (in short 'the Act'). The High Court quashed the order 
.-l_ 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. R.R. MISHRA@ PANDEY [PASAYAT, .I] 
297 
.. 
-!-
only on the ground that there was violation of the prii1ciples of natural justice A 
as well as the fundamental rights protected under Article 22(5) of the 
Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution'). The order of

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