ASHOK DADU MANGALE Vs. A N ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 read with Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution brings in question the order of detention dated 3/3/2005 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan mumbai under Section 3 (2) of the Maharashtra prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (the Act for short). The said order has been claimed to have been passed with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and to further arrest his activities of a "slumlord" as defined in Section 2 (f) of the Act.

(2.) The petitioner is a resident of Mumbai and at the relevant time was residing at Trimurti Seva Sangh, maharashtra Nagar, Mankhurd, a suburb of Mumbai along with his family members. Initially L. A. C. No. 15/2005 came to be registered against the petitioner and 17 others for an offence punishable under Section 3 Z - 2 (6) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 on 2/1/2005 on the complaint filed by Shri Sunil Kashinath Bhutale who was at the relevant time working as Nayab tahsildar, Encroachment and Demolition Department, chembur, Mumbai. The Deputy Collector, Chembur by his order dated 2/1/2005 had ordered the complainant to take penal action against the persons who had constructed the illegal huts by encroachment on the land of Survey No. 80 in the area of Vanikaran (Maharashtra Nagar) , Mankhurd. In the course of investigation the officers concerned, including the deputy Collector, visited the place of offence and statements of four witnesses were recorded. A map of the said land in Survey No. 80 was made available to the Senior Inspector of Police, Police Station at trombay along with 7 x 12 extracts and it was noted that the land belongs to the State Government. The complainant undertook a demolition drive and arrested all the 18 accused on 2/1/2005. They were produced for remand before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 42nd Court, Shinde Wadi, Dadar on 3/1/2005. The petitioner applied for bail and was directed to be released on bail by furnishing personal bond and surety of Rs. 1500/ -. Accordingly the petitioner availed the bail facility on 3/1/2005 and became a free man. Subsequently confidential inquiries were made regarding the criminal activities of the petitioner and his associates and in-camera statements of four witnesses were recorded from 4/1/2005 to 10/1/2005. The Sponsoring Authority, namely, the senior Inspector of Trombay Police Station submitted a proposal on 18/1/2005 for the detention of the petitioner under the Act to the Detaining Authority i. e. the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai and the impugned order was passed on 3/3/2005. The petitioner was served with the order of detention and was taken in custody on 5/3/2005. It was approved by the State Government on 10/3/2005 under Section 3 (3) of the Act. Reference under Section 10 of the Act was made to the Advisory Board on 21/3/2005 and the advisory Board recorded its opinion on 12/4/2005 which was received by the State Government on 13/4/2005. It was placed before the State Government on 16/4/2005 and the State Government passed the confirmation order on the same day.

(3.) The detention order has been challenged on the following grounds:- (A) There was no material before the Detaining authority to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is a slumlord within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the Act and the impugned order does not fulfil the requirements of law as defined in Section 2 (b-1) of the Act. (B) The grounds of detention, served along with the impugned detention order, suffer from non application of mind of the Detaining Authority as much as the said Authority was not sure whether the activities of the petitioner and his associates were causing or calculated to cause harm, alarm and danger to the lives and properties of the residents and the business community in the area of Mankhurd. (C) Some of the documents served on the petitioner along with the detention order were partly and/or wholly illegible (page nos. 75, 95, 96, 99, 113 to 121 and 129 to 141) and as a result thereof the petitioner's right to make an effective representation was jeopardise. Failure to provide the legible copies of the documents amounted to non communication of the grounds of detention and, therefore, the order is bad in law and void ab initio. (D) The detention order suffers from gross delay in as much as the LAC No. 15 of 2005 was registered on 2/1/2005, in-camera statements were recorded from 4/1/2005 to 10/1/2005 but the impugned order came to be passed only on 3/3/2005. (E) The order passed by the Deputy Collector, chembur on 2/1/2005 referred to in para 5 (a) (i) of the grounds of detention was not furnished to the petitioner and thereby the detention order is vitiated. Similarly, a true and correct translation of the bail order was not provided to the petitioner in the language known to him i. e. the bail order has not been translated in Marathi and supplied to the petitioner along with the impugned order and on this ground also the detention order is vitiated. (F) In the Marathi version of the grounds of detention the petitioner's right to make representation to the Detaining Authority has not been set out and thus there is a failure to communicate regarding the petitioner's right to make a representation whereas in the English version a right has been expressly communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner does not understand English and he read only Marathi version of the grounds of detention and, therefore, he has been deprived from making an effective representation. On this ground also the detention order is illegal and bad in law. (G) The representation was submitted by the petitioner on 28/6/2005 but it was not decided expeditiously and the rejection of the representation was communicated to the petitioner on 13/7/2005. The delay caused in deciding his representation has violated the guarantee under Article 22 (5). In addition, the copies of the documents necessary to submit the representation were not supplied to the petitioner and on that count also the impugned order of detention is illegal.