The Bombay High Court bench, comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, on August 23, 2024, addressed a criminal writ petition challenging a detention order issued by the District Magistrate of Solapur. The petitioner was detained under 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) for allegedly being a "sand smuggler." The Court found inconsistencies in the application of criteria for the detention and ultimately quashed the order, citing non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority.

The Detaining Authority had issued the detention order against the accused, alleging involvement in illegal sand extraction, smuggling, theft, and sale of stolen sand, as well as environmental destruction. The Authority claimed that the accused’s activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and justified preventive detention. The detention order was primarily based on the accused's criminal record and two in-camera witness statements, identified as Witness A and Witness B. The notable incident cited involved a tractor-trolley suspected of carrying illegally extracted sand, which was intercepted by government officials. The petitioner was accused of manhandling the officials during the interception. The Detaining Authority classified the accused as a "sand smuggler" under Section 2(e-2) of the MPDA Act.

The Court highlighted that to classify an individual as a sand smuggler, it is essential that "a person who individually or as at part of a group of persons is engaged in or is preparing to engage in or associated with or abets unauthorized extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of sand and its transportation, storing and selling or who commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences in respect of sand which are punishable under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 or under the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013."

The Court highlighted that to classify an individual as a sand smuggler, it is essential that the person is engaged in, or preparing to engage in, activities such as unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, transportation, or sale of sand, or in the abetment of such activities, punishable under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MM Act), or the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013 (MMME Rules).

The Court noted that the material before the Detaining Authority failed to demonstrate that the accused was either the owner of the tractor/trolley or that the sand being transported belonged to him. The Authority also failed to prove that the sand had been illegally excavated. The Court further observed that while considering the manhandling of officials constituted an offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), no charges were filed under the MM Act, or the MMME Rules .

Regarding the in-camera statements of Witness A and Witness B, the Court found them lacking in substance, as they merely alleged the accused's involvement in illegal sand excavation and transportation without detailing specific incidents. The witnesses also claimed that the petitioner had instilled terror in the locality by offering liquor to youngsters in the surrounding villages.

The Court concluded that the accused was detained not as a bootlegger or a dangerous person but as a sand smuggler, yet the evidence presented did not substantiate this classification. The Detaining Authority's reliance on the accused's criminal record and past activities, which allegedly terrorized the community, led the Authority to treat him as a dangerous person. However, the detention was ordered on the basis of the accused being a sand smuggler, which the Court found unjustifiable. The Court held that the apprehension that the accused might engage in similar activities in the future did not satisfy the criteria for detention as a sand smuggler under the MPDA Act.

Consequently, the Court declared that the detention order was flawed due to non-application of mind, quashed the order, and directed the release of the accused from detention.

Advocates for the Petitioner: Adv. Ritesh Thobde, Adv. Zubi Ansari, Adv. Changdev Shingade, Adv. Ankita Pramod Rai

Advocate for the Respondent: J.P. Yagnik, APP

Case Details: Tukaram Birappa Pujari v. Commissioner of Police, Cri.WP/2876/2024, decided on 23.08.2024

(For more updates, tap to join our Whatsapp Channel and our LinkedIn Page)