JUDGMENT
D.G. DESHPANDE, J.
1. Heard Mr. Tripathi for the petitioner –
detenu and Mr. B.R. Patil, Acting P.P. for
the State.
2. The detenue is detained under Section 3(1)
of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous
Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug
Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981. The
detention order is dated 17.8.2002. Grounds of
detention are of the same date. The detention is
based on one C.R. and two in-camera statements.
In the petition number of grounds have been
raised but Mr. Tripathi concentrated on ground
(J) and since we are allowing the petition on
that ground alone, we did not hear him on other
grounds.
3. As per ground (J) the detention order was
dated 17.8.2002. Initially the detenue refused
to accept the grounds of detention and other
documents. Thereafter his Advocate applied to
the State Government for supplying the grounds of
detention and other documents. Such an
application came to be sent by the Advocate of
the detenue on 23.9.2002 but the grounds of
detention were served upon the detenue on
13.10.2002 i.e. after a lapse of about 21 days
and therefore according to the detenue the
inordinate delay in executing the order vitiate
the detention because it is violative of Article
22(5) of the Constitution of India.
4. The detaining authority as well as
sponsoring authority filed their affidavit and
again fresh affidavit dated 3.4.2003 of Mr. V.H.
Bhasin, Sr. Inspector of Police, is filed.
In all the affidavits filed in reply to this
particular allegation attempt is made to explain
the delay. However it is a fact that the
Government passed order of supplying copies on
19.09.2002 and not on 23.9.2002 as stated by the
Petitioner-detenue in ground (J); and the
documents came to be served upon the detenue on
9.10.2002. In the affidavit in reply it has been
stated that because the detenue has refused to
accept the documents initially, every authority
thereafter went through all the documents, papers
and grounds of detention carefully and the papers
were further processed by the officer who was in
charge of the file but the detaining authority
was at Delhi between 1.10.2002 to 6.10.2002 and
therefore there was delay.
5. Mr. Patil stated that firstly there is
no delay in serving the documents upon the
detenue and secondly delay between 19.9.2002 and
9.10.2002 is properly explained in the
affidavits.
6. We are not at all satisfied by the
affidavits filed by the authorities in this
regard. It is an admitted fact that when the
detention order was passed on 17.8.2002 all the
documents including grounds of detention and
compilation were ready and they were merely to be
served upon the detenue. Even if the detenue
refused service of the documents but when his
advocate applied for supplying him the documents
what was required was mere tender of the set to
the detenue and nothing new was to be prepared
nor was there any necessity of processing the
document and application of mind. It was not a
question of changing the documents or changing
the detention order or charging the grounds of
detention. The legal formality was required to
be completed in respect of service of the
documents which were prepared or were ready on
the date and at the time of signing of the
detention order on 17.8.2002. Therefore the
contention of the detaining authority and other
authorities that different authorities
reprocessed the documents, reconsidered them, is
not at all acceptable. We find that some lame
attempt is made to explain the delay between
19.9.2002 to 9.10.2002. There is no explanation
at all and whatever is contended by the
authorities is not acceptable in the
circumstances of the case. This has resulted in
affecting the right of the detenue to make
representation at the earliest point of time as
envisaged under Article 22(5) of the Constitution
of India. Consequently the petition succeeds.
Hence, the order:
ORDER
Petition is allowed.
Rule made absolute.
Order of detention dated 17.8.2002 is
quashed.
Detenue Vilas Siddhu Jadhav be released
forthwith, if not required in any other case.