LAXMI VIJAY SALUNKHE Vs. D. S. SOMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order of detention dated 30th July, 19S5 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, under section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug -offenders Act, 1981, hereinafter referred to as the "said Act", against one Vijay Tukaram Salunkhe, hereinafter referred to as the "detenu", is challenged by his wife In this petition under Article 220 of the Constitution of India. The order of detention states that the Commissioner of Police, who is the detaining authority under the said Act, after being satisfied that it was necessary to do so, passed the order detaining the detenu with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the said Act. Along with the order of detention, the grounds of detention of the same date were also supplied to the detenu.

(2.) BEFORE dealing with the challenge made by Mr. Parekh, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition, it would naturally be advantageous to briefly notice the grounds of detention. The detaining authority has been the grounds of detention by mentioning that the detenu "is hereby informed that the grounds on which a detention order has been made are as follows". Thereafter six paragraphs from I to VI detail the various activities which show that the detenu is a slumlord. In paragraph V it has been stated that the various tenants who have been inducted by the detenu in houses illegally constructed by him on public property have stated that whenever there was a delay on their part in paying the rent the detenu used to visit their rooms and threaten them. Paragraph IV divided into several sub -paragraphs in each of which an act of the detenu on different dates has been mentioned. The detaining authority thought, and we will show presently rightly, that these various acts constituted a chain of action or conduct which had the effect of disturbing the even tempo of life of a section of the community living in slum area.

(3.) ON the facts of this case we are satisfied that looking to the frequency of the acts of the detenu, the circumstances in which the threats have been given and the thread running through all these incidents, namely his character as a slumlord, they have got the effect of creating an alarm in the minds of persons who are his tenants. It should also not be forgotten that the threats which he has given to the tenants who have refused to yield to his illegal demands will necessarily have a frightening effect upon the other persons living in the slum area. If this is the conclusion which has been drawn by the detaining authority on the facts of this case, we are unable to say that conclusion is one which no rational person can draw. It is impermissible for us to sit in judgment over a conclusion reached by a detaining authority if that conclusion is reasonably possible from the material which was considered by him.