RAJU VITTHALRAO BHADRE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was ordered to be detained vide order dated 8-2-2000 issued by Commissioner of Police, Nagpur in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short, the said "act") read with Government Order, Home Department, (Special) No. DDS. 1399/4/spl. 3 (B) dated 19th November, 1999. The detention order was served on the petitioner on 8-2-2000. The grounds of detention were served on the petitioner on 10-2-2000. The detention order was approved by the Government on 18-2-2000. The Government made reference under section 10 of the said Act to the Advisory Board on 23-2-2000. The Advisory Board gave its opinion on 21-3-2000 and the detention order was confirmed by the Government on 29-3-2000.

(2.) THE detention order is challenged by the petitioner on various grounds including that the Detaining Authority has failed to communicate to the petitioner that he could make representation within twelve days and non-communication of the same is fatal. In view of the judgment of the Full Bench in (Sunil Sadashiv Ghate v. State of Maharashtra and others), Criminal Writ Petition No. 272 of 1999 reported in 2000 (5) Bom. C. R. (F. B.)827 which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in (State of Maharashtra and others v. Santosh Shankar Acharya), 2000 (5) Bom. C. R. (S. C.)751 : 2000 (5) SCALE 387, that the Detaining Authority was not made aware as to whether the petitioner was in jail or on bail when the detention order was made as a result of which the detention order is vitiated; that the representation dated 10-3-2000 was not forwarded by the Advisory Board to the Government nor the representation dated 14-3-2000 filed by the petitioner before the respondent No. 1 was forwarded by the Government to the Advisory Board due to which the right of representation enjoined vide Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India has been materially affected and that the instances on which the Detaining Authority has relied upon do not pertain to public order, but those instances pertain to violation of law and order.

(3.) TO start with, it was urged that the Detaining Authority was not aware as to whether the petitioner was in jail or on bail as a result of which the recording of the satisfaction by the Detaining Authority is not in accordance with law. Factually, the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is not correct since in the grounds of detention dated 8-2-2000 in para 11, it is stated that petitioner may submit representation to the Government through Superintendent of Jail where he is detained. In view of this, it is not necessary to refer to the authorities on which learned Advocate for the petitioner had placed reliance. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the first submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner.