Bombay High Court
SANDEEP DHONDIBA MOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- RULE ABSOLUTE
Holding
The detention order under the MPDA Act is invalid and is quashed.
Summary
Petitioner Sandeep Dhondiba More challenged his detention order dated 09.02.2026 issued by the District Magistrate, Nanded, under Section 3(1) 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 (MPDA Act). The detaining authority relied on two FIRs alleging sand smuggling, but the court found the material insufficient, the secret‑witness statements vague, and no specific threat to public order. Moreover, procedural lapses were noted, including the issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 without arrest and the claimant’s release on bail. The court held that the detaining authority had not applied its mind nor satisfied the requirement of subjective satisfaction, and therefore quashed the detention order and ordered the petitioner’s release.
Issues considered
- Whether the detention of the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the MPDA Act is valid in view of the alleged insufficiency of material and lack of specific threat to public order.
- Whether the petitioner qualifies as a "sand smuggler" within the meaning of Section 2(b‑1) of the MPDA Act.
- Whether the procedural requirements, including issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the requirement of subjective satisfaction, were complied with.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 35(3)
- Environment (Protection) Act — s. 15(1), 9
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code — s. 48(7), 48(8)
- 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 — s. 2(b‑1), 3(1), 3(2)
- Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 — s. 3, 7
Subjects
- preventive detention
- sand smuggling
- MPDA Act
- subjective satisfaction
- secret witnesses
- public order
- Article 226
- writ petition
Judgment
(1)
Cri. W.P. 840-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 840 OF 2026
Sandeep Dhondiba More,
Age : 25 Years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Bhangi, Tq. & Dist. Nanded PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department (Special),
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The District Magistrate/ Collector,
Nanded
3. Deputy Secretary,
Home Department (Special),
Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
4. The Superintendent of Jail,
Harsool Central Prison,
Chh. Sambhajinagar
5. The Superintendent of Police Nanded
6. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
Sub-Division, Itawara, Dist. Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS
…..
Mr. Ranjit D. Gaikwad h/fMr. S.G. Kawade, Advocate for
the petitioner.
Mr. Govind A. Kulkarni, A.P.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 6.
…..
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 05.08.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 17.08.2026
(2)
Cri. W.P. 840-2026.odt
FINAL ORDER (Per Sandipkumar C. More, J.) :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order of detention
dated 09.02.2026 passed by respondent No.2 District
Magistrate, Nanded in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) 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 (hereinafter
referred to as “MPDA Act”) as well as the approval order of the
State Government dated 18.02.2026 and confirmation order dated
12.05.2026 passed by respondent No.1-State, by invoking the
powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
following offences are registered and two preventive action is
also taken against the petitioner.
(3)
Cri. W.P. 840-2026.odt
Sr Police C.R. No. & Under Date of Present
. Station Section Registration status
N
o.
1 Nanded 621/2023 u/s 379, 24/08/2023 Pending
Rural 34 of IPC, 48(7) of trial
Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, 15(1)
The Environment
(Protection) Act.
2 Malakoli 82/2025 u/s 303(2), 03/05/2025 Pending
3(5) of BNS, 2023, 4, trial
21 of Mines and
Minerals
(Development and
Regulation) Act 1957
3 Loha 259/2025 u/s 11/08/2025 Pending
303(2), 281, 285, trial
221, 126(2), 3(5) of
BNS, 2023, 48(7),
48(8) of Maharashtra
Land Revenue Act
1966
4. Nanded 1009/2025 u/s 20/10/2025 Under
Rural 303(2), 3(5) of BNS, investigati
2023, 48(7), 48(8) of on
Maharashtra Land
Revenue Act, 1966, 9,
15(1) of The
Environment
(Protection) Act, 3, 7
of Prevention of
Damage to Public
Property Act 1984.
Preventive Action
Sr. Police Chapter Case Date of Disposal
No. Station No. and u/s registration
1 Nanded 360/2023 u/s 21/09/2023 Closed
Rural 107 of Cr. P. C
(4)
Cri. W.P. 840-2026.odt
The detaining authority has considered the aforesaid two
offences namely C.R. No. 259/2025 registered with Loha
Police Station, under Sections 303(2), 281, 285,221,126(2), 3
(5) of BNS 48(7), 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
on 11.08.2025 and C.R. No. 1009 of 2025 registered with
Nanded Rural Police Station, Dist. Nanded under Sections
303(2), 3(5) of the BNS 2023, 48(7), 48(8) of the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Act, 1966, 9,15 (1) of The Environment
(Protection) Act, 3, 7 of Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act, 1984 on 20.10.2025 to declare the petitioner as a
“Sand Smuggler”. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, though it is claimed that the petitioner is involved
in sand smuggling, but there are only four offences registered
against him. According to him, the material on record is
definitely insufficient to hold that the present matter involves
any breach of public order. Further, according to him, the
statements of secret witnesses are stereotype in nature, which
do not reflect any specific date of the incident. Thus, he
prayed for setting-aside the impugned order of detention. He
also relied following judgments of this Court, which is as
under :-
(i) Swapnil S/o Dilip Chaudante Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others (Cri. W. P. No. 1681 of 2025)
(5)
Cri. W.P. 840-2026.odt
(ii) Saisingh @ Sailala S/o Deepaksingh Geherwar Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and others (Cri. W. P.
1394/25)
(iii) Devidas Lalji Ade Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
others ( Cri. W. P. 469 of 2022)
(iv) Madhukar Aawba Hegade Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Others ( Cri. W. P. 1319 of 2025)
(v) Tukaram Birappa Pujari Vs. The Commissioner of
Police and others ( Cri. W. P. 2876 of 2024)
4. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by filing affidavit-
in-reply of respondent No.2. According to him, the petitioner is
definitely a “Sand Smuggler” within the meaning of Section
2(b-1) of the M.P.D.A. Act. He pointed out that the petitioner is
involved in sand smuggling, which is definitely against the
public order as there are so many complaints of similar
incidents against him. Moreover, as per the statements of
secrete witnesses, the petitioner is involved in sand smuggling
and even after preventive action, he continued his illegal
activities as before. As such, he prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
5. Admittedly, there are only two crimes registered against
the petitioner as aforesaid. Further, from those offences, it is
(6)
Cri. W.P. 840-2026.odt
evident that allegations of sand smuggling are there not only
against him, but so many persons appeared to be involved in
the same. The alleged criminal acts of the petitioner involves
theft of sand, but it is equally important to note that despite
registration of those offences, the petitioner was not even
arrested and notice under Section 35 (3) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was issued. It is important to note that,
despite issuance of aforesaid notices, the detaining authority
mentioned in the detention order that he was released on bail.
This is complete non application of the mind on the part of the
detaining authority.
6. Further, on perusal of statements of secret witnesses, it
is clearly evident that they have only stated about the general
criminal behaviour of the petitioner without quoting any
specific date of incidents. Moreover, those statements are
stereotype in nature, wherein it is vaguely mentioned that the
petitioner is involved in sand smuggling. However, it is equally
important to note that though it is claimed that he is involved
in such crimes, but there is registration of three crimes against
him in the year 2025 and only two of them are considered.
Considering the nature of allegations in the F.I.R., in both
these crimes, it is apparent that only question of law and order
(7)
Cri. W.P. 840-2026.odt
may arise, but not any threat to the public order. Therefore,
considering the overall material against the petitioner, it
cannot be held that the detaining authority after subjective
satisfaction, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is
sand smuggler as contemplated under M.P.D.A. Act.
Therefore, even though the respondent No.1 has confirmed the
order of detention, but on overall consideration, it is revealed
that the impugned order has been passed without application
of mind and in absence of subjective satisfaction. Therefore,
we pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition stands allowed.
(ii) The detention order dated 09.02.2026, passed by
respondent No.2-The District Magistrate Nanded,
under Section 3(2) of the M.P.D.A. Act, 1981 as
well as the approval order of the State
Government dated 18.02.2026 and the
confirmation order dated 12.05.2026 are hereby
quashed and set aside.
(iii) Petitioner Sandeep Dhondiba More shall be
released forthwith, if not required in any other
offence.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
( VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Checking your session…