YESHWANT HIRAJI CHIKALKAR Vs. R.H. MENDONCA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who styles himself as the father of the detenu Mahendra Yeshwant Chikhalkar, has impugned the detention order dated 6th November, 1999, passed by the 1st respondent - Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, obtaining the detenu under Sub -section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug -offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. IV of 1981)(Amendment - 1996). The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 6th November, 1999, was served on the detenu on 16th November, 1999 and their true copies are annexed as Exhibits 'A' and 'B' respectively, to this writ petition.

(2.) A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned detention order is founded on one C.R., namely C.R. No. 234/99 under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 384, 387, 120 -B of the I.P.C. read with Sections 3, 25 of the Arms Act, registered on 27th June, 1999 on the basis of a complaint lodged by Subhash Alokchand Gandhi at Malad Police Station and in camera statements of two witnesses namely A and B which were recorded on 23rd July, 1999.

(3.) GROUND 4K has been replied to in paragraph 2 of the return by Mr. M.B. Khopkar, Desk Officer, Home Department (Special), Government of Maharashtra. From a perusal of the aforesaid paragraph, it appears that in all the detenu made four representations. The first dated 23rd October, 1999 to the Hon'ble State Minister (Home), Maharashtra; the second dated 18th November, 1999 in the Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special); and the third and fourth dated 16th December, 1999 and 21st December, 1999 respectively to the Chairman, Advisory Board (under the M.P.D.A. Act). It further transpires from a perusal of paragraph 2 of the said return that the first and second representations were rejected by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), on 27th November, 1999 and communication to the detenu that they were rejected was made on 29th November, 1999. It also appears from paragraph 2 of the said return that : - (a) the 3rd and 4th representations were forwarded by the Superintendent, Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik, vide his letter dated 21st December, 1999 to the Advisory Board and copies endorsed to the Government which were received by the department on 22nd December, 1999; (b) the report of the Advisory Board was received by the Government on 3rd January, 2000; (c) since the file was received back on 21st January, 2000 from the Minister of State (Home) to whom it had been sent on 9th December, 1999 for perusal of the first representation (representation dated 23rd October, 1999), nothing could be done in between 3rd January, 2000 and 21st January 2000; and (d) after receipt of the file on 21st January, 2000, without any loss of time, on 24th January, 2000 (22nd January, 2000 and 23rd January, 2000 being holidays) the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), rejected the representations and communicated the order to the detenu on 27th January, 2000.