TARABAI SHASHIKANT MAYEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. BATTA, J. The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Siddharth @ Siddhu Shashikant Mayekar, has filed this petition for quashing detention order dated18th September 2001 issued by the respondent No. 2 under which the detenu has been ordered to be detained under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slum Lords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Person Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred as the said Act ).

(2.) LEARNED Advocate Shri. M. R. Daga argued on behalf of the detenu and has raised before us three submissions namely : - (1)There is no live link between the detention order and prejudicial activities and delay in issuing the detention order has not been explained. In this respect, reliance has been placed on Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar Vs. S. Ramamurthi and Others (reported in AIR 1994 SC 656 ). (2)The detention is based upon solitary incident and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Pradip Bhikaji Satam Vs. S. M. Shangari and others (reported in 2002 Cri. L. J. 1715 : 2002 ALL MR (Cri) 774), detention cannot be ordered on the basis of the solitary incident. (3)Copy of the bail application was neither before the detaining authority nor the same has been furnished to the petitioner though the copy of the order on the bail application was before the detaining authority and the same also given to the detenu but the non consideration of the bail application and non furnishing of the same have caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, as a result of which his right to make representation under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution has been adversely affected. In this connection, reliance has been placed on Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik Vs. Union of India and others (reported in AIR 1991 SC 2261) and Mrs. Anandi Laxman Patil Vs. Shri. R. H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay and others (reported in 2000 (5) Bom. C. R. 35 ).

(3.) IN respect of the third submission, learned A. P. P. has stated that the bail applications filed by the applicant himself are neither vital documents nor it was necessary to furnish the same to the detenu since the bail applications have been filed by the detenu himself. She has further submitted that non furnishing of the same has not affected the right of the representation of the detenu under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution since as a matter of fact the detenu in this case had not filed any representation thereunder. IN this respect, it is also urged that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority cannot be interfered lightly by the Court and that there is no justification whatsoever to quash the detention order on this ground. IN this respect, reliance has been placed on Haridas Amarchand Shah of Bombay Vs. K. L. Verma and others (reported in AIR 1989 SC 497); Manzoor @ Mansoor @ Manoj Ahmed Sayad Ahmed Vs. R. H. Mendonca and others (reported in 2000 (3) Mh. L. J. 398 : 2000 ALL MR (Cri) 1600) and Vinod Vitthal Rane Vs. R. H. Mendonca and others (reported in 2001 (2) Mh. L. J. 437 ).