RAVINDRA ANANDA SUPNEKAR Vs. R H MENDONCA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this Criminal Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner-Detenu impugns the Detention Order dated 23rd March, 1999 passed by the 1st Respondent- Mr. R. H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, detaining him 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) (hereinafter referred to as M. P. D. A. Act ). The Detention Order along with the grounds of detention also dated 23rd March 1999 was served on the Petitioner-Detenu on 25th March, 1999. True copies of the Detention Order and the grounds of detention are annexed as Annexures 'a' and 'b' respectively, to this Petition.

(2.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Since in our view this Petition deserves to be allowed on a solitary ground viz. ground 7 (E), we are not adverting either to the prejudicial activities of the Petitioner-Detenu contained in the grounds of detention, warranting the issuance of the impugned Detention Order or to the other grounds of challenge pleaded in Writ Petition. Ground 7 (E) in substance is that since the Marathi translation of the grounds of detention supplied to the Petitioner-Detenu who only knew Marathi and Hindi, suffered from a number of basic mistakes the Petitioner-Detenu's right to make a representation under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India was impaired. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Detenu, amongst other inaccuracies in the translation, invited our attention to two main inaccuracies. He urged that in the grounds of detention, in paragraph 4, it has been mentioned that the Petitioner-Detenu was committing activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order but in Marathi translation of paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention it has been stated that the Petitioner-Detenu has been committing activities prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order. Again learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Detenu pointed out that in paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention it has been mentioned that in case the Petitioner-Detenu was allowed to remain on bail he was likely to revert to similar activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future but the Marathi translation of paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention is to the effect that if the Petitioner-Detenu was allowed to remain on bail he would revert to similar activities prejudicial to law and order.

(3.) IN the circumstances, we allow this Criminal Writ Petition; quash and set aside the impugned Detention Order; direct that the Petitioner-Detenu be released forthwith, unless wanted in some other case; and make the Rule absolute. Petition allowed. .