LALLANPRASAD CHUNNILAL YADAV Vs. S RAMAMURTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is detained since 1/6/1991 under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act, 1981, passed by the 1st Respondent. The Petitioner detenu had challenged the said order of detention earlier by his Criminal Writ Petition No. 804 of 1991 but the said challenge was negatived by this Court by its Judgment dated 25/26/9/1991. The Petitioner filed second Criminal Writ Petition being No. 1273 of 1991 which again proved futile and was dismissed on 28/10/1991. The Petitioner has come up with this third Writ Petition on a new ground of challenge. It is contended in paragraph 8 of the present Petition that the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Desk Officer Mr. S. S. Kelkar in the earlier Criminal Writ Petition No. 804 of 1991 shows that while rejecting petitioners representation on 2/8/1991 and subsequent confirming the order of detention on 2/8/1991, the opinion of the Advisory Board was not even in existence on that day and on the face of it, it is apparent that the Respondent had made up their mind before the receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board.

(2.) SHRI A. V. Bajaj, leamed Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the present affidavit indicates that the representation of the petitioner dated 28/7/1991 was received in the Home Department on 30/7/1991 and was placed before the Minister on 31/7/1991. It further indicates that upon consideration, the Honble Minister rejected the said representation on 2/8/1991. The affidavit-in-reply further states that the report of the Advisory Board was received by the Home Minister on 20/8/1991 and was considered by the Honble Minister on 22/8/1991. On the said date, the Honble Minister also considered the representation which was forwarded by the detenu to the Advisory Board earlier and which had been received by the Honble Minister along with the Advisory Boards report. The Honble Minister however, rejected the representation ta the Advisory Board and confirmed the order of detention which was issued on 27/8/1991. Shri Bajaj then pointed out that according to the earlier affidavit filed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 804 of 1991, the same Desk Officer Mr. S. S. Kelkar had stated that the Minister considered the representation carefully and rejected the same on 2/8/1991. It further states that the reply to the representation was given on 2/8/1991 itself and that the representation was thus expeditiously and independently considered by the Government. In the earlier affidavit, no special reference was made to the date of the report of the Advisory Board but in the present affidavit in Schedule in para 3 of the affidavit, the Desk Officer has stated that the opinion of the Advisory Board was dated 8/8/1991 which was received in the Home Department on 20/8/1991 and the order of detention was confirmed on 27/8/1991.

(3.) ON the basis of a silent variance regarding the date 22/8/1991 Mr. Bajaj submitted that apparently the Minister had pre-judged the issue while rejecting the representation on 2. 8. 1991 and had not awaited the report of the Advisory Board. For this submission he relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in K. M. Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India.