Bombay High Court

RAHUL ARUN TAKversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is disposed as premature, but the petitioner’s right to challenge the detention order remains open.

Summary

Petitioner Rahul Arun Tak filed a criminal writ petition challenging a detention order dated 19 March 2026 issued under the MPDA Act. The petitioner argued that the order should be invalid because the required approval order was not passed within the period prescribed by Section 3(3) of the MPDA Act. The respondents produced an approval order dated 30 March 2026, showing compliance with the statutory period, thereby keeping the original detention order in force. However, the court observed that the detention order had not yet been executed and the petitioner was not in custody, rendering the petition premature. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition but kept open the petitioner’s right to challenge the order in the future.

Issues considered

Whether the detention order dated 19‑03‑2026 remains in force despite the timing of the approval order under Section 3(3) of the MPDA Act
Whether the petition is premature since the detention order has not been executed and the petitioner is not detained

Legislation cited

MPDA Act — s. 3(3)

Subjects

detention
MPDA Act
premature petition
approval order
execution of order

Judgment

                                  (1)
                                               940 Cri. W. P. 1157-2026.odt
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1157 OF 2026

                         RAHUL ARUN TAK
                               VERSUS
          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                  …..
      Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Milind M. Patil (Beedkar)
      APP for Respondents: Mr. S. J. Salgare
                                  ....

                   CORAM :      SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, &
                                VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.J.

                   DATED :      August 21, 2026

ORDER:-

1.    Heard.



2.    Though the order dated 19.03.2026 passed by respondent No.2

under the provisions of MPDA Act is challenged by the petitioner, but

the learned A.P.P., on instructions, submits that, the said order is not

yet executed and petitioner is not detained yet.



3.     Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,

the order shall not remain in force, since approval order is not passed

within the period mentioned in Section 3 (3) of the MPDA Act.

However, today, the learned A.P.P. placed on record the said approval

order, which appears to be passed on 30th March 2026. As such, the

original detention order dated 19.03.2026 is very much in force today.
                                  (2)
                                               940 Cri. W. P. 1157-2026.odt
4.     Moreover, since the said order is not executed, by detaining the

petitioner, the present petition appears to be premature. Accordingly,

it stands disposed of.



5.     We make it clear that the further remedy for the petitioner for

challenging the impugned order is kept open.



(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)             (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
      JUDGE                                 JUDGE

YSK/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…