FEHMIDA IQBAL SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner who styles herself as wife of the detenu Iqbal alias Balu Rafiuddin Shaikh, has impugned the detention order dated 21-4-1999 passed by the second respondent Mr. R. H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai detaining 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. LV of 1981) (Amendment-1996) (hereinafter referred to as the M. P. D. A. Act ). True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention which are also dated 21-4-1999 are annexed as Annexure A and C respectively to this petition and were contemporaneously served on the detenu on 3-5-1999.

(2.) A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned detention order is founded on two C. Rs. namely C. R. No. 411 of 1998 under sections 452, 395, 397, 34 read with 37 (a) (1), 22-51 of the Bombay Police Act, registered at M. R. A. Marg Police Station on the basis of a complaint lodged on 10-10-1998 by one Nilesh Shah and C. R. No. 440 of 1998 under section 399, 402 read with section 3, 25 Arms Act of M. R. A. Marg Police Station on the basis of a complaint lodged on 2-11-1998 by P. S. I. Prakash Shinde and two in camera statements dated 24-11-1998 and 26-11-1998 of witnesses A and B respectively. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the said C. Rs. and in camera statements incriminate the detenu.

(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Ms. Ansari, learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the impugned detention order is vitiated because, the Hindi translation of para 6 of the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu, is vitally different from para 6 of the grounds of detention which is in English. She pointed out that whereas in para 6 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that he was further satisfied that having availed of the bail facility and in the event of becoming a free person and remaining at large, you (detenu) are likely to revert to similar activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future and it was necessary to detain you (detenu) under the M. P. D. A. Act, the Hindi translation of para 6 of the grounds of detention is to the effect that the detaining authority was satisfied that in C. R. No. 411 of 1998 and 440 of 1998, the detenu would not be released on bail and would remain in custody but, still there was a possibility that he could be released on bail in the said C. Rs. and thereafter, indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and hence it was imperative to detain him under the M. P. D. A. Act. In Ms. Ansaris contention, on account of the aforesaid discrepancy, the detenu may have been confused in making a representation and consequently, his right to make an effective representation under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India was infracted.