Keshav Madhav Vaibhat vs The District Magistrate & Ors.

J U D G M E N T : [Per Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, J.]

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the admission stage with the consent of learned advocates for the parties.

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the detention order dated 02.01.2026 bearing No. 2026/RB-Desk-1/Pol-1/MPDA/Kavi-08, passed by Respondent No. 1 - District Magistrate, Jalna, in exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers, Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities, Illegal Gambling, Illegal Lottery and Human Trafficker Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “MPDA”) and the confirmation order dated 25.02.2026 bearing No. 0126/CR-21/Spl-3B, passed by Respondent No. 3 - State Government in exercise of the powers under Section 12(1) of the MPDA. By the impugned detention order, the petitioner is directed to be detained for a period of 12 months on the ground that the petitioner is a “sand smuggler” within the meaning of Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA.

The impugned detention order has been passed on a proposal submitted by Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station - Gondi, Dist.-Jalna. The proposal has been routed through Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sub-Division Ambad, Dist. - Jalna and Superintendent of Police, Jalna, and eventually placed before the respondent No. 1 - District Magistrate, Jalna, who claims to have arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the petitioner’s detention is necessary to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order. The record reflects registration of five (05) past criminal cases, one preventive action and one externment proceeding taken against the petitioner. The reference chart showing criminal record of the petitioner, is reproduced hereunder :

Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that although five offences are registered against the petitioner, the detaining authority has considered only two recent crimes i.e. C.R. No.217 of 2025 and C.R. No.218 of 2025, both registered with Gondi Police Station, Tal. Ambad on 12.06.2026, under Sections 303(2), 3(5), 329 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) r/w Sections 3 and 4 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘Mines and Minerals Act) and Sections 303(2), 3(5) of the BNS r/w Sections 3 and 4 of the Mines and Minerals Act respectively, and two in-camera statements of Confidential Witnesses 'A' and 'B' to declare the petitioner as a “Sand Smuggler”.

Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned detention order is illegal and bad in law. It is submitted that:

The in-camera statements of confidential witnesses were recorded on 23.06.2025, yet the proposal for detention was forwarded only on 24.12.2025, i.e., after a lapse of nearly six months. The detaining authority passed the detention order on 02.01.2026, while the last crime relied-upon is of 12.06.2025. This unexplained delay snaps the live link and demonstrates no imminent threat or pressing urgency for taking action against the petitioner.

The detaining authority has acted in a mechanical manner by relying upon C.R. No. 217/2025 and C.R. No. 218/2025, in which the petitioner was not added as an accused. His name did not appear in the PCR list and though he was subsequently arrayed as an accused, he was never arrested.

The in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' are vague and concocted. The incidents relied upon are against specific individuals and do not establish that the petitioner's activities disturbed the even tempo of life of the community.

It is lastly submitted that as the detention order is based on stale material and is passed without proper application of mind and reaching at the requisite subjective satisfaction is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned A.P.P. while supporting the impugned order submitted that:

There is no delay in passing the detention order that would snap the live link. The proposal was processed through the appropriate channels in a timely manner and was confirmed by the Government. The Advisory Board also found sufficient grounds for detention.

Though the petitioner's name was not initially arrayed as an accused or mentioned in the PCR list in C.R. Nos. 217/2025 and 218/2025, his involvement was subsequently revealed during the course of investigation. Accordingly, on 04.07.2025, his name was formally added as an accused in both the crimes.

The in-camera statements of witnesses are not vague. They specifically mention the date, time, and place of the incidents and the statements were properly verified by the authorities. The petitioner's illegal sand mining activities have grave consequences that directly affect the public order. The witnesses' statements corroborate that people are afraid to come forward and that the even tempo of life has been disrupted.

Learned A.P.P. lastly submitted that the order of detention was passed on proper application of mind and arriving at a subjective satisfaction that the activities of petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, based on his criminal record and the verified in-camera statements, and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

In support of his submissions, learned A.P.P. has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Harish Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.; Criminal Writ Petition No. 1398 of 2016, dated 10.10.2016, to submit that illegal sand mining activities have grave consequences that affect public order and, therefore, the detention order in the present case is sustainable.

Heard learned advocate Mr. Kunal Kale for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. Mr. S. J. Salgare for the respondent-State. With the assistance of the learned advocates, we have perused the petition, affidavit-in-reply, original record and the citations relied upon by both the sides.

The aspect of “live link” is of importance in preventive detention. It is well settled that existence of a live link between the prejudicial activities of the detenu and passing of the detention order is essential to sustain the order of detention. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi Vs. State of Manipur; (2010) 9 SCC 618, unexplained delay snaps the live link and vitiates the subjective satisfaction. Further, in the case of Nilofer Ramjan Shaikh Vs. Commissioner of Police, Pune City and Ors.; Criminal Writ Petition No. 3471 of 2025 dated 15.12.2025, this Court has held that unexplained delay, whether short or long, has to be explained properly.

In the present case, we find that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay at multiple stages:

The in-camera statements of confidentia witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ were recorded on 23.06.2025. The said statements were verified on 08.07.2025. However, the proposal for detention was forwarded by the sponsoring authority on 24.12.2025. There is a delay of approximately six months between the recording of the in-camera statements and the initiation of the proposal. Further, the last offences relied-upon for passing the detention order are C.R. No.217/2025 and C.R. No.218/2025, both registered on 12.06.2025. The detention order was passed on 02.01.2026. There is a delay of over six months between the alleged prejudicial activities and the passing of the detention order.

The detaining authority has failed to offer any explanation for the delay in processing the proposal. The mere fact that the proposal was routed through various channels does not explain the delay of nearly six months in forwarding the proposal after recording of the in-camera statements.

It is also significant to note that the petitioner was externed from the districts of Jalna, Beed and Parbhani for a period of six months, by order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambad. The term of externment ended in August 2025. Both the crimes relied upon by the detaining authority were registered during the period when the petitioner was externed. The statements of confidential witnesses were also recorded during the externment period.

There is no discussion in the detention order as to the consideration of externment order or insufficiency of the said action taken against the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had committed any breach of the externment order or that any action was taken against him for breach of the conditions of externment.

The fact that the petitioner was already externed while the offences alleged were committed, there was no breach of externment order, coupled with the long and unexplained delay in forwarding the proposal, leads to an inference that there was no pressing urgency or imminent threat which warranted preventive detention of the detenu and has also snapped the live link between the alleged activities and the purpose of detention.

The distinction between “law and order” and “public order” is well-settled. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments and also discussed in the case of Ameena Begum Vs. The State of Telangana & Ors.; 2023 INSC 788, breach of law in all cases does not lead to public disorder. In paragraph 33 the Court has observed thus:

Thus, for an act to be considered prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it must have a wide-ranging impact on the community at large and must disturb the even tempo of life of the society.

Also, as observed in the case of Hasan Khan Ibne Haider Khan v. R.H. Mendonca and Ors.; (2000) 3 SCC 511, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to its earlier decision in the case of Amanulla Khan Vs. State of Gujarat; [(1999) 5 SCC 613], held that:

In the present case, we have carefully perused the in-camera statements of confidential witnesses 'A' and 'B'. Witness 'A' has quoted an incident of 26.02.2025. The incident, as narrated, appears to be of an individual nature, directed specifically against the witness for his act of assisting the authorities. There is no material to show that the incident caused any disturbance to the public at large or affected the even tempo of life of the community.

Witness 'B' has quoted an incident of 23.05.2025. The incident narrated is of a general nature and does not disclose any specific act of the petitioner that caused a disturbance to the public order. The statement appears to be vague and does not establish that the petitioner's activities had a wide-ranging impact on the community at large.

The incidents disclosed in the statements of confidential witnesses are against specific individuals and do not go beyond the capacity of ordinary law to deal with them. The allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not establish that the petitioner's activities disturbed the “even tempo of life” of the community or caused a breach of public order. At the most, the incidents may amount to a breach of law and order, which is not sufficient to invoke the provisions of preventive detention.

We have carefully perused the judgment relied on by learned A.P.P. in Harish Patil (supra). This Court in the said case, while upholding the detention order, observed in paragraph 36 that sand smuggling from river banks affects the water table and water level, thereby affecting the public in general and more particularly farmers. The Court also observed that sand smugglers create terror in the vicinity and are a menace to public order.

We find that the said judgment is factually distinguishable from the present case. In the said case, there were specific allegations in the in-camera statements that the detenu had threatened and assaulted villagers, created a reign of terror, and prevented farmers from attending their fields at night, causing them great loss. The Court found that the activities of the detenu had affected not just individuals but the villagers of many villages, thereby amounting to a disturbance of public order.

In the present case, the in-camera statements do not disclose such grave allegations. The incidents disclosed are of an individual nature and do not demonstrate that the petitioner's activities had a wide-ranging impact on the community at large, as was the case in Harish Patil (supra).

Moreover, the observations in paragraph 36 of Harish Patil (supra) are, at best, obiter dicta and cannot be treated as a ratio decidendi and thus, cannot be applied to all cases of sand smuggling.

The reliance placed by the learned A.P.P. on the judgment is therefore misplaced. The said judgment being distinguishable on facts does not advance the case of the respondents.

Also, the petitioner was not arrested in connection with C.R. Nos.217/2025 and 218/2025, despite his name being subsequently added as an accused on 04.07.2025. No explanation has been offered as to why the petitioner was not arrested if his involvement in the said crimes was so grave as to warrant preventive detention.

Furthermore, the proposal for detention was initiated after the externment period had ended in August 2025. The statements of confidential witnesses which were already verified on 08.07.2025 were further re-verified on 25.12.2025, just a day after initiation of the proposal. These facts indicate that the detaining authority proceeded against the petitioner with a pre-determined motive and without due application of mind.

In view of the above discussion we are of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority appears to be based on stale and uncompelling material. The detention order is thus, unsustainable in law. The petition deserves to be allowed.

Hence, the following order is passed :