ORDER
Vishnu Sahai, J.
1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who styles herself as the mother of the detenu, Satnamsingh Ajamersingh Gundu, has impugned the Detention Order dated 26th May 1999 passed by the 1st respondent-Mr. B.S. Mohite, Commissioner of Police, Thane, detaining the detenu under section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (Mah. Act No. LV of 1981).
Copies of the Detention Order and the grounds of detention which are also dated 26th May 1999, are annexed as Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively, to this petition and were served on detenu on 27th May 1999.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Since, in our view, this writ petition can be allowed on a solitary ground, namely, that pleaded as
ground 7(b), we are neither adverting to the other grounds of challenge raised in the petition nor to the prejudicial activities of the detenu stipulated in the grounds of detention.
Ground 7(b) in substance is that on account of wholly/partly illegible copies of vital documents like bail application and bail order, being supplied to the detenu, the detenu was deprived of his fundamental right of making a representation, guaranteed by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
3. Ground 7(b) has been replied to in paragraph 9 of the return of the Detaining Authority, wherein the Detaining Authority has categorically denied that any of the documents supplied to the detenu were illegible.
4. We have persued ground 7(b), of the writ petition and paragraph 9 of the affidavit of the Detaining Authority and make no bones in observing that we find merit in ground 7(b).
A perusal of the set of the documents served on the detenu by officers of the Detaining Authority (respondent No. 1) shows that copies of the bail applications moved by the detenu in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, in both the C.Rs. referred to in the grounds of detention, namely, C.R. No. 1-363/98 under section 387, 34 I.P.C. of Police Station, Kalyan, registered against the detenu on the complaint of Dr. Shripad Maushkar and C.R. No. 1-368/98 under sections 304, 387, 34 I.P.C. of M.F.C. Police Station registered against the detenu on the complaint of Mrs. Lalita Amarsingh Gundu, were illegible in part.
5. It is common ground between Counsel for the parties and is also evident from a perusal of the paragraph 7 of the grounds of detention that the detenu was on bail in both the aforesaid C.Rs. at the time of issuance of the Detention Order.
6. The Supreme Court in the oft-quoted case of Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India & others, has held that if the detenu is on bail at the time of the passing of the detention order then the bail application and bail order would be vital documents and should be placed before the Detaining Authority and their copies supplied to the detenu.
7. It is pertinent to point out that the object of the Supreme Court in mandating in paragraph 12(6) of (supra) that copies of bail application and bail order be supplied to the detenu is to enable him to exercise his fundamental right, guaranteed by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, of making a representation. This can only be done if legible copies of the bail application and the bail order are supplied to him.
8. In our view, since copies of bail applications in the said two C.Rs. supplied to the detenu were illegible in part, the latter’s right to make a effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India was grievously impaired.
9. In such a situation, we are left with no option but to allow this writ petition.
10. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned Detention Order is quashed and set aside. The detenu Satnamsingh Ajmersingh Gundu is directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case.
Rule is made absolute.
11. Writ petition allowed.