1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.507 OF 2005. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's appearances, Court's orders or directions order and Registrar's order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Mr.V.M.Deshpande,Adv. for the petitioner. Mrs.Dangre, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: J.N.PATEL & B.P.DHARMADHIKARI,JJ. DATE : 16th March, 2006. 1. The petitioner has challenged his detention under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlord, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short 'MPDA Act'). The detention order came to be passed on 21-3-2005. 2. This is the case where the petition could not be taken up for hearing within a period of one year i.e. period of detention of the petitioner and, therefore, it has become infructuous. 3. Before we could part with the petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to our notice a fact that a Non-Government Organisation 'VARHAD', which is working in Amravati region for 2 rehabilitation of prisoners have taken up the case of petitioner for rehabilitation after his release from Jail but in the meantime, he came to be detained under the MPDA Act. We expect the respondent/State and its officials while exercising their powers under the MPDA Act to be sensitive to such issue and this fact should have been taken into consideration by the detening Authority, which in this case is respondent no.3- Commissioner of Police, Amravati. We expect that the detening Authority in future would also examine the cases placed before it for passing orders of detention with a view point as to whether the detenu can be rehabilitated rather than passing an order of detention on the basis of certain material placed before it. 5. With these observations, we dismiss the petition as infructuous. 6. Rule is discharged. JUDGE JUDGE pzc