SUJIT SURESH MENPAL Vs. A N ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution assails the order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, brihan Mumbai on 7-10-2005 under section 3 (2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and dangerous Persons, Act, 1981 (for short "the MPDA Act"). The said order was served on the detenu on 8-10-2005 and subsequently the detention period has been confirmed for a period of one year and thus it would expire on 7-10-2006. This petition was filed on 1-12-2005 and it came to be admitted on 6-12-2005.

(2.) The petitioner is the resident of Sonapur, Jay Hind Nagar, Mankhurd, a suburb of Mumbai city. Along with the impugned detention order a copy of the grounds of detention was also served on the detenu. He had sent his representation on 28-11-2005 i. e. before this petition was filed and the State government has rejected the representation on 7-12-2005 and the same was communicated to the detenu on 8-12-2005. Reference under section 10 of the mpda Act was made to the Advisory Board on 17-10-2005 and the Advisory board by its opinion dated 11-11-2006 found sufficient reasons in support of the order of detention as per its report dated 14-11-2005. The report of the Advisory board was placed before the State Government as per the Rules of Business framed by the Government of Maharashtra on 17-11-2005 and the State government confirmed the same on that day.

(3.) Though the impugned order has been challenged on more than one grounds, Mr. Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed emphasis on twogrounds viz. (i) the delay caused in passing the impugned order on 7-10-2005 though C. R. No. 26/05 was registered against the detenu in January, 2005 and (ii) the delay caused in recording in-camera statements on 17-8-2005 and 13-8-2005. When CR No. 26/05 was registered in January, 2005, the detenu was arrested on 25-4-2005 in connection 'with the said CR and he was released on bail on 28-4-2005. As per Mr. Tripathi in, the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Detaining authority as well as on behalf of the State Government the delay caused in passing the impugned order has neither been explained nor the said delay is justified on any count and if the delay has not been explained, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. In support of these contentions Mr. Tripathi has relied upon the following decisions of this Court: (i) Ashok Kumar @ Ashokankumar Kunjamani Thewar @ Thiyar @ kittu vs. The Commissioner of Police and ors. , 2002 All MR (Cri) 22 ; (ii) Austin Williamb Luis Pinto vs. Commissioner of Police, Greater mumbai and ors. , 2005 All MR (Cri) 28 and (iii) Haroon Mohammed naim Choudhary vs. Shri A. N. Roy, Commissioner of Police, Brihan mumbai and ors. , Criminal Writ Petition No. 260 of 2006 decided and allowed on 28-7-2006 unreported as yet [since reported in 2006 (2) Mh. LJ. (Cri) 381]