NASIR MAQBUL SHAIKH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a brother of detenu Salim Maqbul Shaikh (Salim Shethji), by this petition has challenged the Order of detention of six months dated 13.03.2010, passed by the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Solapur, which was served on the detenu on the same day, under The Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, on various grounds. Mr. S.R. Chitnis, the learned Senior Counsel, has restricted the submission based upon Vijay Kumar Dharna alias Kokta v. Union of India & ors., 1990 AIR(SC) 1184, by referring to grounds in para 7(b) which reads as under:

(2.) Mr. Yagnik, the learned APP for the State has strongly relied on the judgment of A.C. Razia Vs. Government of Kerala & Ors., 2004 2 SCC 621, to oppose the above basic submission raised by the Petitioner. The Supreme Court has reiterated the importance of supply of translated documents in this judgment. The supply of wrongly translated document is the bone of contention in the present case, specially because the Respondent officer's averments are that the translation so made was not incorrect. We are also satisfied that the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities to the community cannot be equated with the maintenance of public order. Both are different concepts. The stand of the respondent is not correct. The present case is of supply of wrong translation of the basic reason and not of nonsupply of the translation. The facts and circumstances are, therefore, distinct and distinguishable.

(3.) We have noted that the impugned order of detention in its English version states that the detention is with a view to prevent detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supply of essential commodities to the community, whereas, its Marathi translation shows that, with a view to prevent him acting in any manner prejudicial to public order. Thus, the very purpose for which the impugned order of detention has been passed defers substantially in the impugned order in its English translation and in the Marathi translation and hence, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Dharna (supra) is squarely applicable.