SHAILAJA SHETTY Vs. SATISH SAHNEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :-

(2.) THIS is a writ petition challenging the order dated 9/6/1995 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rule was granted. The Officers of the State and Central Governments have filed affidavits in reply. We have heard Mr. Shirish Gupte, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.R.Borulkar with Mrs. V. K. Tahilramani, the learned A.P.Ps. for the State of Maharashtra and Mr. H.V.Mehta, the learned Counsel for the Union of India.

(3.) AS already stated, the two incidents were dated 6/6/1994 and 6/7/1994, the detenu came to be arrested in C.R.No.239 of 1994 on 15/11/11994 and he was released on bail on 25/11/1994. It is further seen from the affidavit of Shantaram Borse, ASsistant Police Inspector, that the detenu was arrested in other case C.R.No.155 of 1994 on 31/1/1995 and came to be released on 13/2/1995. Though specific grounds are taken in the petition about stale grounds being made the subject matter of the order of detention, it is interesting to note that the affidavit of the present Commissioner of Police Mr.Tyagi is very vague on this point. While meeting the allegations in the petition in para 4 he has denied the contentions made in the petition that the grounds were stale, there was non application of mind and the order was passed mechanically etc. He has also not explained as to how and in what manner papers were dealt with and how his predecessor took 11 months from the date of incidents for issuance of the impugned order of detention. However in the subsequent affidavit filed by the ASsistant Police Inspector Shantaram Borse some dates are given. We have already referred to the two cases in which the detenu was arrested and was released. The detenu came to be released on 25/11/1994. There was no difficulty for the sponsoring authority to take steps from that day onwards and initiate steps for the preventive detention of the detenu for maintaining public order. No explanation is coming either from the detaining authority or from the ASsistant Police Inspector as to why proceedings were started only in March 1995 when the sponsoring authority prepared a proposal. Even then the said affidavit does not give us details as to what happened after 30/3/1995 till the impugned order of detention came to be passed on 5/6/1995. However the learned Additional Public prosecutors placed before us the case file and referred to certain dates. Even granting that the Court can look into the case file and find out the dates, we are not much impressed that there is satisfactory explanation for the delay in passing the order of detention. The learned Additional Public prosecutor stated that for two months the papers passed from one authority to the other like Special Public Prosecutor, Additional Commissioner of Police, Joint Commissioner of police and ultimately the Commissioner approved the order of detention on 20/4/1995. AS rightly argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner the State should have placed on record all these dates by filing an affidavit to show as to how the papers were dealt with. Though some dates could be gathered from the file, it is not clear as to how many days were taken by each Officer in scrutinising the papers. AS already pointed out the detenu was released on bail on 25/11/1994. There was no legal impediment for the sponsoring authority to take steps for the detention of the detenu in case it was necessary for the maintenance of public order. There is no explanation as to why the proceedings were started only in March 1995.