PANDIAN KANDSWAY NADAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the detenu has challenged the order of detention dated 23rd of December, 1985 detaining him under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act, 1981.

(2.) It is an admitted position that after the detenu was detained under the said order the grounds of detention as well as copies of the documents, referred to and relied; upon in the said grounds, were supplied to the detenu. The detenu was actually detained on 1st of November, 1985. His detention was approved by the State Government on 7-11-1985. His case was referred to the Advisory Board on 20-11-1985. The Advisory Board gave him personal hearing on 13-12-1985 and submitted its report accompanied by the proceedings on 17-12-1985. Thereafter the Government confirmed the detention on 23-12-1985. Even the report of the Detaining Authority under section 3(3) of the Act dated 4-11-1985 was received in the Home Department on 5-11-1985. Therefore, practically all the provisions of the law were wholly complied with. However, it is contended by Shri Madbhavi, learned Counsel appearing for the detenu that assuming what is stated in the grounds of detention is true, still the averments made therein covered only civil disputes between the landlord and the tenant and in no case it could be said that the activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In support of this contention he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in (Ajay Dixit v. State of U.P. & others) A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 18. He also contended that there is nothing on record to show that the copies of all relevant documents in Tamil language were supplied to the detenu.

(3.) So far as the second contention relating to the supply of translated copies in Tamil language is concerned, in para (b) of the affidavit the Commissioner of Police has stated in clearest terms that the translated copies of all the documents in Tamil language were supplied to the detenu. We have gone through the record and we found that the detenu has signed in token of receipt of the said translated copies.