MASTAN KASIM SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who describes himself as father of the detenu Mukhtar Mastan Shaikh, has impugned the order dated 28-6-2000 passed by the second respondent Mr. M. N. Singh, 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 ). The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 28-6-2000 was served on the detenu on 5-12-2000 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this petition.

(2.) A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned order is founded on one C. R. namely C. R. No. 83/ 2000 under Sections 387, 504, 34, IPC registered on the basis of a complaint dated 26-2-2000 filed by Salim Makarani at Dindoshi Police Station, Mumbai and in camera statements of two witnesses namely A and B which were recorded on 25-4-2000 and 28-4-2000 respectively. Since in our view, a reference to the prejudicial activities of the detenu contained in the said C. R. and the in camera statements is not necessary for the adjudication of ground No. 5 (vi) pleaded in the petition on which ground alone, in our view, this petition deserves to succeed, we are not adverting to them.

(3.) GROUND No. 5 (vi) in short is that on 10-1-2001, the detenu sent a representation, addressed to the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, on behalf of the State Government through the Superintendent of Mumbai Central Prison which was considered and rejected by the State Government, the rejection letter having been sent on 31-1-2001, and the State Government should satisfy this Court as to whether the said representation was considered expeditiously and independently by the State Government, uninfluenced by the opinion of the Honourable Advisory Board, and whether the reply was communicated to the detenu without any loss of time. In the said ground, it has been pleaded that in the event of the failure of the State Government in so satisfying this Honourable Court on the aforesaid counts, the impugned detention order would be rendered violative of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India.