(1) 3.wp.404.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.404 OF 2026 Vishal s/o Namdeorao Chincholkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai and others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Sunil Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A. R. Chutkey, APP for respondents/State. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATED : 25/08/2026 1. The petitioner before the Court is aggrieved by the order of detention dated 04.02.2026 passed under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and 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 “Act of 1981”) which was approved on 13.02.2026 and confirmed by the State Government on 27.03.2026 after obtaining the Advisory Board’s opinion on 10.03.2026. 2. 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. 2026:BHC-NAG:11189-DB (2) 3.wp.404.2026 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. 3. In the case of Akshay Bhaskar Sahare (supra) in para 16, it is held as under : “16. We have gone through both the orders to find that what is argued is correct. It will be, therefore, appropriate to reproduce both the orders, which will speak for themselves. The order of the State Government, conferring its powers under sub-section (1) upon District Magistrate, reads as under: “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 (3) 3.wp.404.2026 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).” 4. 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. 5. In the present case also 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. 6. The conduct continued while passing order of approval under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act of 1981. This Court in Akshay Bhaskar Sahare case (supra) held that (4) 3.wp.404.2026 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 reveal how approved period related to prevailing or likely circumstances. 7. Thus, it was expected that the approval order will now be a reasoned order indicating application of mind. The impugned order as passed is also similarly passed without assigning any reason. The detention order dated 04.02.2026 is reproduced as under: DETENTION ORDER Whereas, I, the District Magistrate, Nagpur, on the basis of the material placed before me, including latest crimes committed, and In-camera statements of confidential witnesses, which are personally verified by me as to its truthfulness, and after perusing the Bail order along with its conditions, earlier criminal record etc. against and in respect of person, namely Vishal S/o Namdewrao Chincholkar, age 39 Yrs., R/O Dharam Nagar, Kanhan, Tah. Parsheoni & Police Station Kanhan Dist-Nagpur fully satisfied that in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make an order directing him to be detained under 3(1) of the "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, Illegal Gambling. Illegal Lottery and Human trafficker Act 1981" (Mah. LV of 1981) in the category of "Dangerous Persons & Drug Offenders" (see 2 b-1 & 2 e). Entire Material relied upon for passing this order has been narrated in the Grounds of Detention, forming part and parcel of this Detention Order. (5) 3.wp.404.2026 Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of the Section 3 of the said Act, read with Government Order Home Department (Special) No. MPDA-1225/CR-673/Spl-3B, dated 30th December, 2025. I, the District Magistrate, Nagpur, hereby directs that, the said Vishal S/o Namdewrao Chincholkar be detained at District Central Prison, Kolhapur under sub-Section (2) of the Section 3 of the said Act. Given under my signature and seal on this day of 04/02/2026. Place. Nagpur Digitally signed by Itankar Vipin Vithoba Date: 04-02-2026 20:43:40 District Magistrate, Nagpur 8 The aforesaid order is identical to the order that this Court had considered in Akshay Bhaskar Sahare case (supra). 9. The approval order was passed by the under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special) which is reproduced as under: Date 13.02.2026 ORDER No. MPDA-0226/CR-92/Spl-3B:-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) 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), the Government of Maharashtra hereby approves the order of District Magistrate, Nagpur (6) 3.wp.404.2026 D.O. No. /ADM/ Home/Desk14(1)/MPDA/WS 48/2026, Dated 04th February 2026 made in respect of Vishal S/o Namdeowrao Chincholkar, R/O. Dharam Nagar, Kanhan, Tah. Parsheoni & Police Station Kanhan, Dist. Nagpur, to be detained under the said Act. By order and in name of the Governor of Maharashtra. Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special). 10. Thus, this is also an identical order as was tested in Akshay Bhaskar Sahare case (supra). The only difference is that the earlier order was passed by the Under Secretary whereas in the present case the order was passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department. 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 also. 11. The lapses do not stop here but continue in assessment at confirmation stage. This Court had held that the confirming authority, while passing order 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. 12. Thus, this is also an identical order as was tested in (7) 3.wp.404.2026 Akshay Bhaskar Sahare (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. 13. 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. 14. The State Government had assailed 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 Hon’ble Apex Court, vide order dated 21.11.2025, thought it proper not to interfere with the judgment. Thus, the judgment of this Court attained finality on 21.11.2025. Despite such status, again 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 30.09.2025 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). (8) 3.wp.404.2026 15. In light of the above and since the order of 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 04.02.2026, 13.02.2026 and 27.03.2026. The petitioner shall be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. 16. The petition is disposed of. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J) Sarkate Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 27/08/2026 19:24:39