Bombay High CourtWP/232/2026disposed off

Vinod S/O Sheshrao Bhoyar (In Jail) v. State Of Maharashtra Thr Secretary Home Department Mantralaya

2026-05-06Hon'Ble Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke , Hon'Ble Justice Nivedita Prakash Mehta8 pages

1 33-E-Cr.WP 232-2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 232/2026 Vinod S/o Sheshrao Bhoyar Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Home Department and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. Anil Mardikar, Senior Advocate a/b Mr.Aniket Sawal, Advocate for petitioner Mr. A.B. Badar, APP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 CORAM: URMILA JOSHI PHALKE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.

DATED : 06.05.2026 1.

The petitioner is before the Court aggrieved by the order of detention dated 23.02.2026, passed under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, DrugOffenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981, which was approved and confirmed by the State Government on 05.03.2026.

In a bunch of petitions with lead petition in the case of Akshay Bhaskar Sahare Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (Criminal Writ Petition No. 223/2025), this Court 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

2 33-E-Cr.WP 232-2026.odt powers of State Government are delegated to officers below.

In the case of Akshay Bhaskar Sahare Vs.

State of Maharashtra and another (supra) in para Nos.5 & 6, it is held as under :

"5.

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, une, 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");

3 33-E-Cr.WP 232-2026.odt 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 subsection (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, exercise the powers conferred on the State Government by subsection (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 Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special) has, on 30-122025 passed following order. "ORDER No.

4 33-E-Cr.WP 232-2026.odt 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, Persons engaged in Black-marketing of Essential Commodities, Illegal Gambling, Illegal Lottery and Human Trafficker 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 01 January, 2026 and ending on the 30th June, 2026, the District Magistrates Thane, Palghar, Raigad, Ratnagiri, Sindhudurg, Pune, Solapur, Kolhapur, Sangli, Satara, Nashik, Ahilyanagar, 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 subsection (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, exercise the powers conferred on the State Government by subsection (1) of Section 3 of the said Act. By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra."

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. The conduct continued while passing order of approval under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act of 1981. The Court held in Akshay Bhaskar Sahare Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (supra) that the order of approval must be substantive and not mechanical. The order should reflect consideration of the materials including grounds for detention. The Court had noticed that the order of approval did not disclose the grounds on which detention was approved nor did it revel how approved period related to prevailing or likely circumstances.

Thus it was expected that the approval order was reasoned order indicating the application of mind.

5 33-E-Cr.WP 232-2026.odt The impugned order passed in the present matter also similarly passed without assigning any reason which is reproduced as under :

GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA Home Department, 2nd Floor, Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mumbai - 400 032 Most Immediate Email ID - spec3b.home@maharashtra.gov.in ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date - 05.03.2026

ORDER

Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bottleggers, 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 No. MPDA-0226/CR-130/Spl-3B : - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section

(3) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bottleggers, 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 (Mah. No. LV of 1981), the Government of Maharashtra hereby approves the order of District Magistrate, Nagpur D.O. No.

ADM/Home/Desk14(1)/MPDA/WS 61/2026, Dated 23rd February, 2026 made in respect of Shri Vinod S/o Sheshrao Bhoyar, R/o Plot No.

521, Near Gokul Dairy, Bharat Nagar, Kalmana Market, Nagpur, to be detained under the said Act.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra, Sd Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra Home Department 5.

The aforesaid order is identical to the order that this Court has considered in Akshay Bhaskar Sahare Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (supra). The only difference is that earlier order is passed by the Section Officer and now the order is passed by the Under

6 33-E-Cr.WP 232-2026.odt Secretary. Thus the designation of the officer passing order has changed but the content remains same. What was, however, incumbent upon the State Government was not only to change hands but to change the mindset. 6.

The lapses do not stop here but continue in assessment at confirmation stage. This Court had held that the confirming authority, while passing oder under Section 12 of the Act of 1981, must re-assess circumstances as they exist on the date of conferment and record reasons for continuing detention and for duration fixed. The conferment authority was duty bound to record reasons as to why detention should be continued for a specific duration, particularly when the detention is extended to maximum permissible duration of twelve months.

Thus, this is also an identical order as was tested in Akshay Bhaskar Sahare Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (supra) which was set aside saying that order was passed without assigning reasons for continuation of detention for a specific period and without ascertaining whether the circumstances shall continue to prevail for the specified period. 8.

In addition to above, the Court had explained the vitality of the Advisory Board as a Constitutional safeguard and noted that in these cases, the Board's role did not rectify the procedural deficiencies at other stages. The corrective steps appears to have been not taken in the present case as well. 9.

The State Government had assailed the judgment of this Court before the Hon'ble Supreme

7 33-E-Cr.WP 232-2026.odt Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Akshay Bhaskar Sahare in SLP (Cri) No. 18690/2025. The Supreme 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 30-12-2025, the Deputy 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 30-9-2025 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). We accordingly issue notice to Ms. Madhuri Kumbhar, Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special) and Mr. Rajendra Tanaji Bhalwane, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special) as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated for willful disobedience of the order, made returnable on 21-4-2026.

10.

In the light of the above and since the orders conferment of powers, order of approval and order of confirmation passed under Sections 3(2), 3(3) and 12 of the Act of 1981 are apparently illegal, we set aside the said orders dated 23.02.2026 and 05.03.2026, passed under Section 3(2), 3(3) and 12 of the Act are

8 33-E-Cr.WP 232-2026.odt apparently illegal. We set aside the said orders and the petitioner shall be set at liberty, if not required in any other case.

11.

The petition is disposed off.

(NIVEDITA P. MEHTA,J.) (URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.) MP Deshpande Signed by: Mr. M.P. Deshpande Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 07/05/2026 15:41:55