NATHURAM GOPAL PADVEKAR Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE RATNAGIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition for seeking a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, who is the detenu has taken exception to the order dated 27th November, 2015 passed by the first Respondent in exercise of powers under Section 3 (1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders & Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the "M.P.D.A. Act"). By the said order, the first Respondent directed that the Petitioner shall be detained by way of prevention in exercise of powers under the said Act.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has urged only one ground before us i.e. ground 5(a). The relevant portion of the ground is that the detaining authority has taken into consideration two in-camera statements of the witnesses "A" and "B". It is contended that the verification notes of the two incamera statements are not furnished to the detenu. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner pointed out the affidavit of the detaining authority in which it is stated that copies of in-camera statements were duly verified by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Ratnagiri and copies of these statements are provided to the detenu. However, the affidavit is totally silent about furnishing of the copies of verification of the in-camera statement to the detenu.

(3.) We have given careful consideration to the submissions. Perusal of order of the detaining authority shows that reliance has been placed specifically on in-camera statements of the witnesses A and B. Copies of the in-camera statements of the witnesses A and B supplied to the Petitioner have been annexed to the Petition which do not contain verification. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit in reply filed by the detaining authority, it is stated that both the statements were duly verified by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, City Division, Ratnagiri. The detaining authority has merely stated that copies of in-camera statements have been duly furnished to the Petitioner detenu. We may note here that in Ground (a), a specific stand has been taken that the copies of the verification statement have not been furnished to the Petitioner. Thus, it is undisputed position that there is a verification made of both the incamera statements and the copies of the verification have not been furnished to the Petitioner detenu.