AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
By this petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 13.01.2026, by which the respondent No.2 – District Magistrate/Collector, Akola, detained the present petitioner and the said order was confirmed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department. Thus, the petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order of detention passed under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (for short, “the Act of 1981”), which was approved and confirmed by the State Government.
In a bunch of petitions with lead petition in the case of Akshay Bhaskar Sahare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (Criminal Writ Petition No. 223/2025), this Court had vide order dated 30.09.2025 condemned the manner in which the respondents had invoked the provisions of the Act of 1981. While setting aside the orders, this Court held that the order conferring powers under Section 3 of the Act of 1981 must identify specific circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in the particular local area for which the powers of State Government are delegated to officers below.
This Court had also taken exception to the blanket/state wide portrayal of identical circumstances considering the scope of Section 3 of the Act of 1981. The High Court was required to make such comments because the order conferring powers included almost all the districts. This Court had reproduced sample order which reads thus:
“Date- 26th June, 2024.
ORDER
No. MPDA - 0624/CR - 409/Spl – 3B: Whereas the Government of Maharashtra is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances prevailing and which are likely to prevail in the Districts of Thane, Palghar, Raigad, Ratnagiri, Sindhudurg, Pune, Solapur, Kolhapur, Sangli, Satara, Nashik, Ahmednagar, Dhule, Nandurbar, Jalgaon, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Jalna, Parbhani, Nanded, Hingoli, Beed, Dharashiv, Latur, Akola, Washim, Wardha, Yavatmal, Buldhana, Amravati, Nagpur, Bhandara, Gondia, Chandrapur and Gadchiroli it is necessary that during the period commencing from 01st July, 2024 and ending on the 31st December, 2024, the District Magistrates of the said Districts may also, if satisfied as provided exercise the powers in sub-section (1) of Section 3 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 (Mah. No.LV of 1981) (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act");
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Government of Maharashtra hereby directs that for the period commencing from 01st July, 2024 and ending on the 31st December, 2024, the District Magistrates Thane, Palghar, Raigad, Ratnagiri, Sindhudurg, Pune, Solapur, Kolhapur, Sangli, Satara, Nashik, Ahmednagar, Dhule, Nandurbar, Jalgaon, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Jalna, Parbhani, Nanded, Hingoli, Beed, Dharashiv, Latur, Akola, Washim, Wardha, Yavatmal, Buldhana, Amravati, Nagpur, Bhandara, Gondia, Chandrapur and Gadchiroli may also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, exercise the powers conferred on the State Government by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra,
(Venkatesh Madhav Bhat)
Joint Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special).”
The aforesaid sample order indicates that almost in the entire State of Maharashtra, similar or identical circumstances were either prevailing or likely to prevail. Existence of such situation is fictitious, which in a way, also projects a poor status of law and order in the State. Accordingly, the High Court held that conferring powers of State Government to authorities below is unsustainable. Despite such a categorical finding, the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department has, on 23.01.2026 passed the following order:
[image/exhibit omitted]
Thus, an identical order is passed ignoring the law laid down by this Court. Such is an act which sets forth an insolent conduct of the authorities below.
This aspect is already considered by this Court in Akshay Bhaskar Sahare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (Criminal Writ Petition No. 223/2025) and held that the order of approval must be substantive and not mechanical. The order should reflect consideration of the materials including grounds for detention. This Court had noticed that the order of approval did not disclose the grounds on which detention was approved nor did it reveal how approved period related to prevailing or likely circumstances.
Thus, it was expected that the approval order would now be a reasoned order indicating due application of mind. Despite the said observation, similar types of orders have again been passed by the authorities.
The State Government has challenged the judgment of this Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Akshay Bhaskar Sahare in SLP (Cri) No. 18690/2025. The Apex Court, vide order dated 21.11.2025, thought it proper to not interfere with the judgment. Thus, the judgment of this Court attained finality on 21.11.2025. Despite such status, on 23.01.2026, the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra has passed order of conferment of powers under Section 3 of the Act of 1981, which was followed by order of approval and order of confirmation of detention. These orders are absolutely identical to the order which this Court found fault with. The illegality, however, has continued, which according to us, is a blatant violation of judgment dated 30.09.2025 passed by this Court in bunch of petitions with lead petition in the case of Akshay Bhaskar Sahare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (Criminal Writ Petition No. 223/2025).
In view of the above, we are inclined to dispose of the present petition by holding that the orders conferring powers, granting approval, and confirming the detention, passed under Sections 3(2), 3(3), and 12 of the Act of 1981, are apparently illegal. Hence, the following order is passed:
ORDER
The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed.
The orders dated 13.01.2026 and 13.03.2026 are hereby quashed and set aside.
The petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.