SUREDNERAKUMAR GANESHILAL Vs. SATISH SAHNEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. U.N. Tripathi for the Petitioner, Mr. S.R. Borulkar for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. H.V. Mehta for Respondent No.3. By means of this Writ Petition preferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner (detenu) impugned the detention order dated 27th September, 1995 passed by Respondent No.1 Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay. (Now Mumbai) detaining him under the National Security Act.

(2.) The prejudicial activities of the detenu warranting the issuance of the detention order are contained in the grounds of detention, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the petition. Since in our view a reference to the prejudicial activities is not necessary for the disposal of this petition we are not recapitulating them.

(3.) The short point on which this petition should succeed has been pleaded by the Petitioner's Counsel in grounds 6(C) and 6(D) of the Petition. The ground is that the petitioner belongs to Uttar Pradesh and knew Hindi and consequently a Hindi Translation of the documents, including the grounds of detention was furnished to him. That translation is not faithful and true inasmuch as whereas in the original grounds of detention which are in English, in Paragraph 8 it has been mentioned that the Petitioner is being informed that he had a right to make representation against the detention order to the Central and State Governments at the earliest opportunity but in the Hindi translation what has been mentioned is that he is being informed that he had a right to be represented through a representative before the Central and the State Governments and make a grievance against the detention order at the earliest opportunity. It is urged that on account of this infirmity in the Hindi translation of the grounds of detention the Petitioner's fundamental right, to make a representation to the Central and State Governments at the earliest opportunity, which flows from Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India, has been violated rendering his continued detention unsustainable in law.