(1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of detention dated 5th June, 1999 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai under section 3 (1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (herein after referred to as "the Act") with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention order along with the grounds of detention also dated 5th June, 1999 were served on the detenu on the same day. True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention have been annexed as annexures 'a' and 'b' respectively to this petition.
(2.) WE have heard Mr. Tripathi for the petitioner and Mr. Deshmukh, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Although Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded as many as ten grounds in as much as, in our view, this writ petition deserves to succeed on the ground pleaded by the petitioner as ground 9 (H) in the petition.
(3.) MR. Deshmukh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the document of handling over and taking possession was neither referred to or relied upon by the detaining authority in the ground of detention. He, therefore, submitted that it was not necessary for the detaining authority to furnish the translation of the said document to the detenu. MR. Deshmukh placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa Vs. Union of India (AIR 1991 SC 1640) Wherein the Supreme Court held that the document referred to in the grounds of detention but not relied upon by the detaining authority while arriving at the subjective satisfaction to detain need not be supplied to the detenu and their non-supply would not vitiate the detention order. We are afraid that the decision of the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa's case (Supra) is of no assistance to the respondent in the present case. In the affidavit in reply, it is nowhere pleaded by the detaining authority that the document relating to the handing over of possession to the Borivali National Park was not relied upon by the detaining authority. When the detenu had raised a specific grievance about the non-supply of the translation of the above document, it was expected of the detaining authority to deal with this grievance in the affidavit in reply filed by the detaining authority. The affidavit filed by the detaining authority is completely silent on this aspect. In our view, since the translation of the said document was not furnished to the petitioner, his right to make an effective representation under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India was impaired.