SAHADEO GOPAL RAUT Vs. SATISH SAHNEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for Habeas Corupus challenging the order issued by Respondent no.1 against the Petitioner's son (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner for brevity's sake) dated 10-11-1994 issued under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act 1980 read with clause 4 of the National Security (Conditions of detention) (Maharashtra) Order, 1980 with a view to prevent the Petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The said order came to be confirmed by the State Government on 13-1-1995.

(2.) THE gist of the grounds for detention are as under :- THE Petitioner was a jobless person and was notorious goonda and member of dreaded 'Amar Naik Gang' indulging in activities of extortion at the point of deadly weapons involved in assaulting and criminal intimidation and potential danger to the peace loving and law abiding community. THE Petitioner and his associates always, moved armed with deadly weapons such as revolver, knife, chopper and 'gupti' ect. and did not hesitate to use the same. Para 4 of the grounds mentioned heinous and serious offences committed by the Petitioner. One Mr. Razzak Ibrahim Machhiwala was dealing in fish business. In July 1991 the Petitioner and some other members of gang approached him and asked him that all those dealers in fish business should pay Rs.1,00,000/- as 'Khandani' (forced payment) and he was threatened. In June 1994 he again approached the said person and asked him to make arrangement for Rs.50,000/- and he was threatened. On 21-7-1994 the Petitioner and other members of gang again approached Razzak Ibrahim Macchiwala. He was threatened and money was demanded. THE said Razzak thereafter filed a complaint with Police on 24-7-1994 under Section 387, 506(ii) read with Section 34 of IPC. During the enquiry certain fire arms came to be recovered from Petitioner. It was further mentioned that number of persons in the locality of Kranatisinha Nana Patil Mandal, Senapati Bapat Marg, N.C.Kelkar Road, J.K.Sawant Marg, Dadar (West) and areas adjoining thereto have suffered at the hands of the Petitioner and other gangsters who were weapon wielding desperado. When they were assured of not disclosing the names, their statements came to be recorded in camera. Various persons have stated how the amounts were extorted from them from time to time and how they could not make any complaint to the Police because of the threats extended. Paras 5 and 6 of the grounds mentioned how the Petitioner has created perpetual danger and terror in the minds of people in the various localities and his various activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order in those localities.

(3.) THE learned Advocate then tried to contend that there was a delay in considering the representation made by the Petitioner. THE representation was made to the State Government on 10-2-1995 (and not dated 8-2-1995). THE same was rejected on 3-3-1995 and reply was served on the Petitioner on 9-3-1995. Reply has been filed on behalf of the State Government by filing affidavit of M.D.Ambade, Desk Officer, dated 20-7-1995. He has pointed out in the reply that representation was received by the State Government on 14-2-1995. It came to be scrutinised by the Desk Officer, Home Department on 18-2-1995, who in turn submitted it on the very day to the Hon'ble Minister (on 18-2-1995) However the Hon'ble Minister was admitted in Hospital from 17-2-1995 to 3-3-1995 due to illness and could not attend the work during that period. It came to be considered and rejected on 3-3-1995. 4th and 5th March 1995 were public holidays. It was received back in Home Department on 6-3-1995 and reply came to be served upon Petitioner on 9-3-1995. In our opinion, the State Government has properly explained the delay in considering the representation. It cannot be said that there is any failure in explaining the same or there was any inordinate delay. Similarly the Union Government has also filed affidavit-in-reply of Mr. Ishwar Singh, Desk Officer of Home Affairs, Government of India and pointed out in paras 6 and 7 how the representation came to be considered and rejected by it on 8-3-1995. We are satisfied that this cannot be a ground in the present case which can vitiate the order of detention.