SHANTA PRAKASH SHEWALE Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed by the wife of Prakash Pandurang Shewale, to challenge the detention order passed against him, under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act, 1974, at the pre-detention stage. The Petition is filed on the assertion that the Petitioner, being wife of the proposed detenu Prakash Shewale, is interested in the life and personal liberty of her husband. She has asserted that she has reason to believe that her husband is likely to be detained. This inference is deduced on the basis of grounds of detention served on the co-detenu Ajit Bapu Satam, who has been detained under the provisions of COFEPOSA Act in connection with the activities in which the Petitioner's husband is also allegedly involved. The Petitioner has thus relied on the grounds of detention served on co-detenu Ajit Bapu Satam and the documents accompanying thereto.

(2.) The Petitioner asserts that her husband has been granted bail by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai on 26 th September, 2011 with strict conditions. That bail order was unsuccessfully challenged by the DRI before the High Court. The Petitioner's husband, apprehending that he would be detained, made detailed representation to the State Government on 13 thJanuary, 2012. Copy of the said representation has been annexed as Exhibit 'D'. In this backdrop, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition on 2 ndMay, 2012, praying for calling the records and proceedings pertaining to the detention order passed against her husband Prakash Pandurang Shewale and to quash and set aside the same.

(3.) The Detaining Authority as well as the Sponsoring Authority have filed reply affidavits to oppose this Petition. After considering the pleadings and the oral arguments canvased before us, the first question that arises for consideration is: whether the Petitioner has locus to challenge the detention order passed against her husband Prakash Pandurang Shewale. The Petitioner, relying on the decision in the case of Additional Secretary to the Government of India and Ors. vs. Alka Subhash Gadia and Anr., 1992 Supp1 SCC 496 as also unreported decision of Delhi High Court in Gopa Manish Vora vs. Union of India and Anr. in Writ Petition (Cri) No. 2444 of 2006, decided on 10 thFebruary, 2009, contends that the Petitioner, being wife of the proposed detenu, is competent to maintain the Writ Petition. To buttress this submission, the petitioner has relied on the exposition in paragraph 5 in Alka Gadia . The Court has noted that the neat question of law that fell for its consideration was whether the detenu or anyone on his behalf was entitled to challenge the detention order without the detenu submitting or surrendering to it. As a corollary to this question, the incidental question posed is whether the detenu or the Petitioner on his behalf, as the case may be, is entitled to the copy of the detention order and the grounds on which the detention order is made before the detenu submits or surrenders. The incidental question articulated in Paragraph 5 is not attracted in this case. The Apex Court, in Paragraph 6 of the reported judgment has noted that the articulated questions may arise for consideration also when an order forfeiting the property as a consequence of the detention order as in that case, was passed, and when the detention order is incidentally challenged to question the validity of the order of forfeiture of the property.