MRINAL NAMDEV WAGHMARE Vs. REVA NAYYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Mrinal Namdev Waghmare, claiming to be a friend of the detenu, Manivannan Mahadevan alias Ruben, a foreign national, for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus for the release of the detenu, who has been detained by respondent No. 1, the Detaining Authority, under section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short, the PITNDPS Act) by an order dated 30th September, 1997 with a view to prevent him from engaging in the possession, concealment, transportation and illicit drug trafficking of narcotic drugs.

(2.) THIS writ petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. By an order dated 7th and 8th September, 1999, the Division Bench has referred the matter for being placed before a larger Bench for resolving the apparent conflict between two decisions of this Court in (Rafiq Abdul Karim Merchant v. Rajendra Singh), 1998 Bom. C. R. (Cri.) 472 : 1998 (2) Mh. L. J. 496, and (Babulal Vildaram Bishnoi v. Reva Nayyar and others), 1998 (6) Learned Judgments 1 Criminal Writ Petition No. 1203 of 1996. The detenu in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1203 of 1996, viz. , Harish Chutraram Bishnoi alias Rajubhai alias Harish, was apprehended along with the petitioner in the instant writ petition on 5th May, 1997. By judgment dated 28th and 29th September, 1998, a Division Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that there was delay of 9 days in the disposal of the representation of the aforesaid co-detenu dated 29th October, 1997, vitiating his continued detention. Consequently, the Detention Order and the Declaration under section 10 (1) of the PITNDPS Act was quashed.

(3.) THE Division Bench, which had earlier heard this writ petition, was of the view that the delay in the disposal of the representation had been satisfactorily explained, but, in view of the fact that the writ petition of the co-detenu, Bishnoi, had been allowed, the matter required to be considered by a larger Bench. It was urged before the Division Bench that there was an apparent inconsistency between the two judgments of this Court which could be resolved only by a larger Bench. In view of the submission urged before it, the Division Bench referred the matter to a larger Bench, and that is how the matter has been placed before us under the order of the Chief Justice.