ROHIDAS Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has filed the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Habeas Corpus inter alia challenging the detention order passed by the Respondent No.1 dated 4 th October, 2014 bearing No.4686/PCB/DET/2014 in exercise of its powers under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (Maha. Act No.LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996) (Amendment 2009) ('M.P.D.A. Act' for short). By the said order the Petitioner has been directed to be detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention order was passed on 4th October, 2014 under the M.P.D.A. Act and the order of detention along with a copy of grounds of detention was furnished to the Petitioner on 4 th October, 2014 itself and the Petitioner has been taken into custody for detention. The said detention order, apart from the previous criminal history of the detenu, is based on two crime reports and two in-camera statement of the witnesses. As stated earlier at the time of his detention, the Petitioner was served with the order of detention, the grounds of detention along with the documents relied on by the detaining authority.

(2.) At the time of filing of the Petition, though the order or detention has been challenged on various grounds, the Petitioner after seeking leave to amend the Petition by order dated 24th March, 2015 from this Court, added two more grounds by way of amendment. The Petitioner has taken various grounds while assailing the order of detention dated 4 th October, 2014. However, in our opinion, the present Petition can be allowed on the ground which has been taken in paragraph No.7(n) of the Petition. In the said ground it is contended by the Petitioner that though in-camera statement of two witnesses have been served along with the documents, a copy of the verification effected by the Assistant Commissioner of Police has not been furnished to him thereby affecting the right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to make an effective representation.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Udaynath Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. J.P. Yagnik, learned APP for the State and also perused the original record produced by the learned APP. In response to the Petition, Mr. Sunil Jaikumar Sovitkar, Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai has filed an affidavit dated 18th March, 2015 for and on behalf of the Respondent No.2 thereby dealing with the points pertaining to the decision of the representation made by the Petitioner and on the point of legibility of the documents which have been served on the Petitioner with reference to the grounds taken in paragraph Nos.7(h) and 7(j) of the Petition. Mr. Satish C. Mathur, Commissioner of Police, Pune, the detaining authority has also filed a detailed affidavit dated 18th March, 2015 opposing the Petition. After the Petitioner amended the Petition and took grounds 7(m) and 7(n) as and by way of amendment, in response to the said amendment the Commissioner of Police, Pune has filed an additional affidavit dated 7th April, 2015 dealing with the said grounds.