JAGADAMBA PRASAD RAMSING Vs. D S SOMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the detenu has challenged the order of detention issued by the Commissioner of Police Greater Bombay on 20th of August 1986, detaining him under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act, 1981.

(2.) Shri Chitnis, learned counsel appearing for the detenu had railed several contentions before us but in view of the statement made in the affidavit in reply, that it is true that the chapter proceedings were instituted against the petitioner, his wife Smt. Fulwari and Hari-kumar Singh, Ramwat Panday and Ramlal Sharma before the Special Executive Magistrate, Santacruz, on the complaints of some or his tenants, and further fact that the said chapter proceeding were terminated on 19th of September 1986 by the Special Executive Magistrate, Santacruz as both the parties except the petitioner, amicably settled the matter and gave assurance that they will not indulge in any act prejudicial to the peace. The detenu has filed before us an undertaking dated 26tui of November 1986 in the form of an affidavit. This undertaking; has been given voluntarily. He has disclosed all the details about the rent payable by the tenants and further in para 5 of his affidavit he has given an undertaking to this Court that he would give bond of good behaviour in favour of the Assistant Commissioner of Police of Greater Bombay Zone VII in the sum of Rs. 5000/- for good behaviour for a period of two years 26-11-1986 and also give surety for the said amount and in the case of the breach thereof the Authorities are at liberty to take any action according to law. This affidavit and the undertaking is taken on record and on the request made by the detenu he is granted two days time to execute the necessary bond.

(3.) However, the main contention raised before us so far as the challenge of the order of detention is concerned, is based on this chapter proceedings itself. It is contended by the detenu that the vital fact that the chapter proceedings were instituted to bound over both the parties and interim bond was also executed by the detenu in those proceedings, is totally ignored by the detaining authority while passing the detention order. This position is not disputed by the detaining authority. However, according to the detaining authority the said fact was neither material nor vital nor relevant. It is not possible for us to accept this contention of the detaining authority. Since it is an admitted position that the Chapter proceedings were instituted against the detenu, his wife and others and interim bond was also executed by the detenu for keeping peace, then obviously the said fact was not only material but also vital for deciding the question as to whether inspite of the said bond an order of detention was called for. The said fact definitely would have weighed one way or the other for drawing an inference or arriving at a subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention. Therefore on this short ground alone the order of detention must be set aside.