RAMAVATI DEVI RAMSURAT YADEV Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the wife of the detenu has challenged the order of detention issued by the Commissioner of Police, Thane on 9th of October 1984 detaining her husband Shri Ramsurat Ramdas Yadav under the provisions of the National Security Act, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Alongwith the order of detention, the grounds of detention as well as the translated copies of the order, grounds of detention and the relevant documents' were supplied to the detenu. It is this order of detention and the continued detention of the detenu which is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) MR . Sebestian, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended before us that admittedly the detenu did not know English language and he was conversant with the Hindi language only. Therefore, the translated copy of the order of detention as well as the copies ot 9ther' relevant documents were supplied to him in Hindi. The order of detention as well as the grounds of detention in Hindi are duly signed by Shri Ramchandran, Commissioner of Police, Thane. Within the meaning of Art. 22 of the Constitution, the order of detention and the grounds of detention were communicated to the detenu in Hindi. Therefore, for all practical purposes it is in Hindi version of the order of detention as well as the grounds which are material and crucial. The said Hindi version clearly indicates that there was total non -application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Apart from several mistakes and discrepancies in Hindi and English versions of the grounds of detention and other documents, there is total non -application of mind on the part of the detaining authority so far as the order of detention and the grounds of detention in Hindi are concerned. This has prejudicially affected the right of the, detenu to make an effective representation against his detention and this is the reason why the detenu could not make any effective representation either to the State Government or to the Central Government. He also contended that the grounds disclosed in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the maintenance of public order. They only involve question of law and order and nothing more. Therefore, the order of detention as well as the continued detention of the detenu is also vitiated on that court. In support of this contention he has placed strong reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajay Dixit v. State of U.P. and others1. 2. 3. On the other hand it is contended by Smt. Desai the learned public prosecutor, that the mistakes in Hindi version are wholly minor and trivial and could not be termed as substantial. Since the mistakes were wholly minor and trivial it cannot be said that the right of the Petitioner to make an effective representation was anyway violated. According to the learned counsel apart from the order of detention, the grounds of detention in Hindi were also served on the detenu. These grounds clearly recite the allegations against the detenu as well as the reasons for his detention. Therefore any mistakes in the translated version of the order will not vitiate his detention. In support of this contention the learned counsel has placed strong reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Devji Vallabhbhai Tandel v. The Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu and another.2 Smt. Desai further contended that having regard to the nature of the activities of the detenu and its potentiality, it is quite clear that he was indulging in violent and terrorising activities which were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, therefore, the order passed by the detaining authority is perfectly legal and valid.