BINDU PANDEY Vs. S C MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the sister of the detenu Gayatri Pandey (herein after referred to as "the detenu") under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus quashing the order of detention dated 5th May, 1997 passed by the Commissioner of Police. Brihan Mumbai under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 ("Act" for short) with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The circumstances under which the impugned order was issued and the material on the basis of which the detaining authority drew his subjective satisfaction are well set out in the grounds of detention. We feel that the entire facts of the case are not required to be proliferated as we are inclined to dispose of this petition on a very short ground viz. that Hindi translations furnished to the detenu along with the grounds of detention were defective and inaccurate adversely affecting the right of the detenu to make an effective representation against the order of detention.

(2.) MR .Naik, learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition, urged that Hindi translations furnished to the detenu along with the grounds of detention contain serious errors and mistakes. According to Mr.Naik this has adversely affected the right of the detenu to make an effective representation against the order of detention. Mr.Naik pointed out that in the grounds of detention the phrase "public order" instead of being translated into "SARVAJANIK SUVYVASTHA" has been translated as "SARVAJANIK SHANTI" "SARVAJANIK HITH". Mr. Naik submitted that "SARVAJANIK SHANTI" means "public peace"and "SARVAJANIK HITH" means "public interest". Both these phrases fail to bring out the crucial required point viz. "prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" occurring in Section 3(1) of the Act. According to Mr.Naik the above error in furnishing true and correct translations reflected non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and, therefore, the detention order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) SIMILAR is the view expressed in an unreported decision delivered by the Division Bench comprising of Agarwal and Moorthy, JJ on 20th June, 1995. (Criminal Writ Petition No.1408 of 1995 (Smt.Subhangi C.Jalgaonkar V/s. Shri Satish Sahney and another) wherein it was held that the mistake in Marathi translation supplied to the detenu wherein the phrase "public order" was erroneously translated as "SARVAJANIK SHANTAVA" or "SARVAJANIK HITH" vitiates the order of detention.