SUKHLATA BHASKAR SHETTY Vs. K S SHINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the wife of the detenu Shri Bhaskar Raghu Shetty has impugned the detention of the latter under section 3 of the national Security Act, 1980, vide order dated 10th May, 1995 passed by the Commissioner of Police, New Bombay (Respondent No.1)

(2.) THE grounds of detention dated 10th May, 1995 were contemporaneously served on the detenu with detention order. In short, they read thus :- (i) THE detenu has formed a gang of goondas indulging in violent and terrorising activities in the area surrounding New Bombay ; (ii) THE detenu interferes with the awarding of contracts etc by his terrorising activities and has established a ring system; (iii) On 16th August, 1994, the detenu telephoned one Rajesh Hansraj Shah resident of Vashi demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- in the name of one Ashok and two of the associates of the detenu visited the aforesaid Shah in order to collect the said amount. THE police of Vashi police station arrested one of them but the other managed to escape. THE person apprehended gave out name of the detenu; (iv) On 29th January 1995, one Santosh Devappa Shetty was assaulted by the associates of the detenu and an offence under section 147, 307/149 IP C was registered on account of the aforesaid incident; (v) One Gopal Yankanna Shetty had written a letter-cum-application to the Inspector of Police, Vashi, New Bombay alleging therein that he and his wife had been receiving threats from the detenu and apprehending danger to his life. Consequently, he prayed for police protection. In the statement of Gopal Yakanna Shetty recorded by police, there is a mention that the detenu had been demanding money from one Diwakar Shetty for having rendered help to Santosh Shetty referred to in ((iv), and (vi) the camera statements of A, B, and C persons to the effect that the detenu indulged in criminal activities and had attempted to extort some money from each of them.

(3.) ARTICLE 22(5) of the Constitution of India mandates that " When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. " (Emphasis supplied). The Apex Court in a catena of decisions has held that in the fundamental right conferred by sub-clause (5) of ARTICLE 22 of the Constitution, which provides that as soon as may be, grounds of detention would be communicated to the detenu and the latter would be afforded earliest opportunity of making a representation against the detention order, is also implicit that any representation made by the detenu would be considered expeditiously and at the earliest.