Pratibha Upasani, J.
1. The Petitioner, who claims to be the cousin brother of the detenu Mohd. Aslam Abdul Sattar Shaikh has, through this Criminal Writ Petition, impugned order dated 16th March. 2001 passed by Respondent No. 1 M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers. Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (Amendment 1996), whereby, the said detenu Mohd. Aslam Abdul Sattar Shaikh came to be detained and at present, he is lodged in Nasik Road Prison.
2. The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 16th March, 2001 was served on the same day and their true copies are annexed as Annexure A and Annexure B respectively to this Petition.
3. The grounds of detention would reveal that it is based on one C.R. namely C.R. No. 406 of 2000 dated 15th November, 2000 under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, registered against the detenu and his associates at Nehru Nagar Police Station and two in-camera statements of Witness A and Witness B recorded on 1st January, 2001.
4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Although in this Writ Petition, Mr. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has pleaded a large number of grounds, running from grounds 8(A) to 8(1), he has pressed before us grounds 8(B), 8(C) and 8(D), and has also generally made submission on the grounds 8(H) and 8(1). Other grounds were not argued by him, and therefore, we are not adverting to them. We will deal with his submissions with respect to grounds 8(B), (C), (D), (H), and (I) one by one.
5. The main ground which was pressed most by Mr. Tripathi, i.e. ground No. B(c), in short is as follows :
The grievance of the Petitioner is that there is a reference to N.C.Complaint .No. 14 of 2000 in para 5(a)(IV) of the grounds of detention, stating that on 30th November, 2000, Smt. Shabanabl (widow of the deceased Ishaque Khan) lodged complaint against detenu's associate Nasir Khan at Chuna Bhatti Police Chowky about his harassment. The Petitioner's grievance is that neither any document pertaining to the said complaint was placed before the Detaining Authority, nor copy was furnished to the detenu. Contention of the Petitioner is that once the said complaint is referred to in the grounds of detention, and relied on by the Detaining Authority, the copy of the said complaint should have been placed before the Detaining Authority, and a copy of the same should have been furnished to the detenu, to enable him to make effective representation. Contention of the Petitioner is that as a result of non-placement of such a vital document, which is reflected in the grounds of detention, as well as non-furnishing copy of it to the detenu, has violated his right to make effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
6. The Respondent No. 1 has filed his affidavit dated 31st July, 2001, and ground 8(C) has been replied by Respondent No. 1 in para 10 of the said affidavit. It is submitted by Respondent No.l that all the documents on which reliance was placed while passing the detention order, were furnished to the detenu along with the Hindi translation, which was thelanguage known to the detenu. It is further submitted by him that all those copies were true, faithful and legible. It is further submitted that the Detaining Authority had not placed any reliance on the said N.C. Complaint No. 14 of 2000 for issuing the detention order, and that, merely a passing reference was made to the said fact in the grounds of detention, just to complete the narration of facts. It is reiterated by Respondent No. 1 that the Detaining Authority has not placed any reliance on the said document to Issue the present order of detention, and that, to issue the present detention order, the Detaining Authority has placed reliance on the statements in C.R. No. 406 of 2000 and the two statements of the two in-camera witnesses.
7. It is further submitted by Respondent No.l that the said N.C. complaint was not a vital or material document in the facts and circumstances of the case, and that, it was clear that the N.C. complaint had not weighed on the mind of the Detaining Authority, while Issuing the detention order. It is therefore submitted by Respondent No. 1 that since legible copies of all the documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority, which were necessary to arrive at his subjective satisfaction in order to issue the present order of detention, were supplied to the detenu, along with the legible copies of their translation, to enable the detenu to make an early and effective representation, there was no infraction whatsoever of the detenu's right as envisaged in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused ground 8(C) and the reply furnished to it by the Detaining Authority in para 10 of his return, and we are satisfied that indeed, the said N.C. complaint was not a vital document at all, and that, non-furnishing of the copy of the said N.C. did not at all violate the detenu's fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution oflndia, to make effective representation to the Detaining Authority. What we find in fact, is that, it was a totally irrelevant document and just a passing reference is made to it, to make the narration and sequence of facts complete. The Impugned detention order is based on C.R. No. 406 of 2001 and the two in-camera Statements of witness A and witness B recorded on 1st January, 2001, and the statements recorded in the said C.R. No. 406 of 2001 and the averments made by witnesses A and B were the foundation of the detention order that came to be passed by Respondent No. 1 and the said C.R. and the two in-camera statements were the ones, which enabled Respondent No.l to arrive at the subjective satisfaction, which led to the passing of the impugned detention order. The legible copies of all the documents, on which the Detaining Authority had relied upon, were supplied to the detenu.
9. The Apex Court in Kamarunnisa v. Union of India and Ors., has specifically stated in para 14 of the said case, as follows :
'Demand of any or every document, however irrelevant it may be for the concerned detenu, merely on a ground that there is a reference thereto in the grounds of detention cannot vitiate an otherwise legal detention order'.
As already observed, the impugned detention order, merely makes a passing reference to the said N.C., just to make the narration of factscomplete, and is not the ground of detention order. Thus, it does not make the detention order bad.
10. Mr. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has drawn our attention to the Judgment of the Supreme Court Kirit Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya v. Union of India.. In this case, it was argued on behalf of the detenu that once a document was referred to in the grounds of detention, it is the duty of the Detaining Authority to supply the same to the detenu as a part of grounds of detention. This argument was accepted by the Apex Court. It was further observed in para 12 of the said Judgment by the Supreme Court that, there is no particular charm in the expressions relied on, referred to. or based on, because ultimatley, all these expressions signify one thing, namely, that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority has been arrived at on the documents mentioned in the grounds of detention. The question whether the grounds have been referred to, relied on or based on is merely a matter of describing the nature of the grounds.'
11. Thus, the view taken by the Apex Court in Kirit Kumar's case (supra) was that when the documents concerned were referred to, relied upon or taken into consideration by the Detaining Authority, they must be supplied to the detenu as part of the grounds of detention, so as to enable the detenu to make an effective representation immediately on receiving the grounds of detention, and this not having been done in the case, the continued detention of the Petitioner was held to be void.
12. We have gone through Kirit Kumar's case (supra), and the observations made by the Supreme Court in that case. We have also gone through the later decision of the Supreme Court on the very same point namely, Kamarunnisa v. Union of India (supra), wherein, in para 13, Supreme Court has categorically observed that demand of any or every documents, however irrelevant it might be for the concerned detenu, merely on the ground that there is a reference thereto in the grounds of detention, cannot vitiate an otherwise legal detention order. Considering the fact*; and circumstances of the present case, in our opinion, the ratio of /fomarunnfsa (supra), which is a later Judgment in the field, is binding on us. We therefore find no merit in ground 8(C), and reject the grievance put forward by the Petitioner fn the said ground.
13. We now come to ground 8(B). Ground 8(B) in substance is that the order of detention is illegal and bad in law, as there is a grave delay in passing the order of detention dated 16th March, 2001. It is the contention of the Petitioner that in view of this gross delay in passing the detention order, the live link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of passing the detention order is snapped.
14. Ground 8(B) has been replied to in para 9 of the return of the Detaining Authority. The Detaining Authority has denied that there was only delay in Issuing the detention order, and to justify this contention, all the chronological events, date-wise have been placed in the said para.
15. It is submitted by Respondent No.l in para 10 of his affidavit dated 31st July, 2001 that the in-camera statements of witnesses A and B were recorded on 1st January, 2001 and C. R. No. 406 of 2000 was registered earlier on 11th November, 2000. Thereafter, the Sponsoring Authoritycarefully went through all the material they had collected, prepared the necessary sets of documents by getting them typed, xerox, etc.. When the necessary sets of documents were ready, they were submitted along with the proposal of the detenu and three other co-detenus dated 6th January, 2001 for their detention.
16. It is thereafter submitted by the Respondent, No. 1 that the proposal of the Petitioner and three other co-detenus dated 6th January, 2001 was forwarded through proper channel before the Detaining Authority, who carefully examined all the material placed before him and after arriving at his subjective satisfaction that it was absolutely necessary to detain the detenu and the three other co-detenus, the impugned detention order came to be passed on 16th March, 2001.
While giving further details with respect to the progress of the said proposal, it is submitted by Respondent No.l that the present proposal dated 6th January, 2001 along with the accompanying papers was submitted by the Senior Inspector of Police of Nehru Nagar Police Station. Thereafter, the said Police Inspector forwarded the papers to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-V. The next date i.e. 7th January, 2001 was a closed holiday. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-V, after carefully going through all the papers, gave his endorsement on 12th January, 2001. Thereafter. 13th and 14th January, 2001 were closed holidays. The papers were then forwarded to the Additional Commissioner of Police, who after carefully going through the said papers, gave his endorsement on 16th January, 2001. Thereafter the papers were forwarded to the Senior Police Inspector. P.C.B. C.I.D., who after carefully going through the said papers, gave his endorsement on 22nd January, 2001. One day prior to that, namely, 21st January, 2001 was a closed holiday. The papers were then forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Preventive), who went through all the papers, and gave his endorsement on 24th January, 2001. Thereafter, the papers were forwarded to the Additional Commissioner of .Police (Crime), who after going through the papers carefully, gave his endorsement on 25th January, 2001. Thereafter, the papers were forwarded to Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), who after going through the papers carefully, gave his endorsement on 29th January, 2001. In this period, 26th, 27th and 28th January, 2001 were closed holidays. The file of the present detenu and other three co-detenus was ultimately put up before the Detaining Authority/Respondent No.1 on 30th January, 2001, on which date he accorded his approval.
It is further submitted by Respondent No. 1 that in the period between 30th January, 2001 to 19th February, 2001, there were a large number of ready detention matters, as well as a large number of fresh detention proposals before him. It is submitted by him that in the said period, a number of detention orders were issued by him. During this period, 4th, 10th, 11th and 18th February, 2001 were closed holidays. After the Detaining Authority gave his endorsement on 20th February, 2001, all the papers were forwarded to the Sponsoring Authority on that day, for the purpose of, fair typing, for preparing the translation of the documents in the language known to the detenus and for preparing the necessary sets of documents, etc. After due compliance, the papers were received by the office of the Senior Police Inspector, P.C.B. C.I.D., Mumbai, who checked all thedocuments and put them before the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) by endorsement dated 9th March, 2001, During this period. 10th and 11th March, 2001 were holidays. Thereafter, the file was submitted to the Detaining Authority on 16th March, 2001. He then went through the proposals and p.apers accompanying the same and finalised the grounds of detention and contemporaneously issued the order of detention on the same day. Thus, giving all the chronological events and almost day-to-day progress of the proposal, the Detaining Authority has vehemently denied that there was any delay in Issuing the order of detention. It is also submitted that considering the facts of this case, it cannot be said that a live link between the prejudicial activities and the order of detention is snapped or that the incidents were stale and remote in point of time. It is submitted that looking to the propensity and potentiality of the detenus to indulge in similar prejudicial activities in future, it cannot be said that the live links are snapped and the incidents have become stale.
17. We have gone through ground 8(B) and the reply thereto filed by the Detaining Authority.
18. In the affidavit of T.L.Patil, Inspector of Police attached to P.C.B. C.I.D., Mumbai, there is further clarification and breakup of dates with respect to the progress of the proposal in para 2 of the said affidavit. In the Sponsoring Authority's affidavit dated 1st August, 2001 also, a systematic account with respect to the progress of the proposal has been given by S.B.Bandgar. attached to Nehru Nagar Police Station, Mumbai. We have gone through ground 8(B), so also, the reply thereto filed by the Detaining Authority in para 10 of his counter, so also, the averments made in the affidavits of the Sponsoring Authority, and we are satisfied that the delay has been satisfactorily explained by them.
19. It is a settled position that the delay ipso facto in passing order of detention after an incident is not fatal to the detention of a person, for, in certain cases delay may be unavoidable and reasonable. The Supreme Court has held this way back in Hemlata Kantilal Shah's case. Hemlata v. State of Maharashtra. Thus, what is required by law is that the delay must be satisfactorily explained by the Detaining Authority, and in the present case at hand, we find, after going through the affidavits filed by the Sponsoring Authority and the Detaining Authority that the delay has been satisfactorily explained. We therefore find no merit in ground 8(B) also.
20. Now we come to ground 8(D). Ground 8(D) in substance, states that there is non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority while passing the detention order, inasmuch as, that when the detention order came to be passed on 16th March, 2001, the detenu was already in judicial custody in C.R. No. 406 of 2000 with effect from 20th November, 2000. whereby, he was already prevented from engaging in prejudicial activities. It is submitted by the Petitioner that in view of this, the detention order was unjustified and unwarranted, and that, there was no compelling reason nor any cogent material on record to justify the clamping of preventive detention order. It is further submitted by the Petitioner in this ground that for about four months, the detenu did not avail bail, even though, he wasgranted bail by the Competent Court, but that, inspite of this, the impugned detention order came to be passed, showing total non-application of mind, and hence, the detention order was Illegal, bad-in-law, and liable to be quashed and set-aside.
21. Ground 8(D) has been replied by the Detaining Authority in para 11 of his Affidavit dated 31st July, 2001. It is submitted by the Detaining Authority in this para that he was aware'that the detenu was in custody when the detention order came to be passed, and that, this awareness was reflected in the grounds of detention. It is further submitted by the Detaining Authority that he was also aware that the application for bail was preferred by the detenu, which came to be granted by the Sessions Court on 2nd March, 2001, and that, inspite of the ball being granted, the detenu had not availed of the said bail. He has further submitted that he was aware of this fact, but he had reason to believe that the detenu might avail of ball at any time and possibility of his being released on ball, could not be ruled out, more so, in view of the tendencies and inclinations reflected in the offences committed by the detenu. The Detaining Authority has submitted that he was therefore satisfied that the detenu would avail of the ball facility any time and in that event, he would be a free person, and was likely to revert to similar activities, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is reiterated that gravity of the prejudicial activities, in which the detenu was Involved, the imminent possibility of his Including in similar prejudicial activities upon his release on ball, were the pressing and compelling reasons, which prompted him to issue the detention order, though the detenu was in custody.
22. Thus, after going through ground 8(D) and the reply thereto filed by the Detaining Authority, we find no substance at all in ground 8(D) also. We therefore reject the contention of the Petitioner's Advocate that th detention order shows non-application of mind in any way. The Detaining Authority was aware and has Indeed shown awareness of the fact that though the detenu was in custody, and though, there was a bail order in his favour granted by the Sessions Court, which was not availed of by him immediately, the Imminent possibility of his availing of the same any time, the imminent possibility of his becoming a free person and reverting to the prejudicial activities, could not be ruled out. This awareness is very much shown in the grounds of detention. We therefore reject the contention of Mr.Tripathi that the detention order suffers on the vice of non-application of mind.
23. Mr. Tripathi, the learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, relied on the submissions in grounds 8(H) and 8(I). In ground 8(H), the averment of the Petitioner, in short, is that at page 215 of the compilation of the documents, there is a document purporting to be Court arrest/ surrender form, in which it is stated by the Sponsoring Authority that as per police record, the detenu is not a dangerous person. The grievance of the Petitioner, therefore, is that, if this be so, the conclusion arrived at by the Detaining Authority that the detenu is a 'dangerous person' shows total non-application of mind, and therefore, the order of detention is illegal and ought to be quashed and set-aside.
24. Ground 8(H) is replied by the Detaining Authority in para 15 of his return, in which, it is averred by Respondent No. 1 that the averments ingrounds of detention, and the material on record discloses the tendency of the detenu to repeat his prejudicial activities, and therefore, it was necessary to preventively detain him, so as to refrain him from acting in similar manner in future. It is submitted by Respondent No.l that considering all the aspects of the case, and thereafter on being subjectively satisfied that it was absolutely necessary to do so, he issued impugned detention order. It is reiterated by him that the order of detention is based on the said C.R. No. 406 of 2000, and two in-camera statements, and that, in the compilation of documents on page 215, which is the Court arrest/surrender form, there is a mention and reference to this very C.R. No. 406 of 2000. It is denied that there is non-application of mind of any sort on his part as a Detaining Authority.
25. We have considered ground 8(H) and the reply filed by the Detaining Authority, and we are satisfied that the accusation of the Petitioner about the Detaining Authority showing non-application of mind, is baseless.
26. The last ground on which Mr. Tripathl, the learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner relied, was ground 8(1). Ground 8(1), in brief, states that a letter dated 3rd April, 2001 was forwarded to the State Government requesting to furnish copies of certain vital documents to the detenu to enable him to make effective representation, and that, the detenu's lawyer received the reply dated 17th April, 2001 from the office of the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, declining to supply the charge-sheets in C.R. No. 404 of 2000 and C.R. No. 406 of 2000, since they were not relied on by the Detaining Authority. Grievance was also made that the Detaining Authority had declined to supply copy of proposal of the case to the detenu.
27. Ground 8(1) has been replied in para 16 of the return filed by the Detaining Authority, it is submitted therein that all the material on the basis of which the order of detention was passed, was furnished to the detenu along with the translation in Hindi, which was the language known to the detenu, and hence, there was no question of supplying for the second time, copies of material relied upon by the Detaining Authority. It is further submitted that at page Nos. 75 to 108 of the compilation of the documents served upon the detenu, reference is made to C. R. No. 404 of 2000, and that, since C. R. No. 404 of 2000 was classified as 'B Summary', the charge-sheet was not relied upon while passing the order of detention, hence, the same was not supplied to the detenu. It is further submitted that only a passing reference to charge-sheet which is filed in C. R. No. 406 of 2000 is made in the grounds of detention, and since the said document was not relied upon by the Detaining Authority while passing the order of detention, copy of the said document was not supplied to the detenu.
It is further submitted that the copy of proposal of detention is a confidential document addressed to the Detaining Authority, and it is not a practice and procedure to supply the same to the detenu.
28. We have gone through ground 8(1) and the reply given by the Detaining Authority in his return in para 16, and we are satisfied with the reasons given' by the Detaining Authority for not finishing copy of the proposal, etc. to the detenu. Indeed, detenu is not entitled for the copy of the same. The detenu has got no right to demand copies of other documeents. since they are not vital documents. We have already made our observationswith respect to the furnishing of documents which are not vital, while dealing with ground 8(C) of the Petition.
29. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in any of the grounds which were pressed and argued by Mr. Tripathi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The other grounds were not pressed by him.
30. In the result, Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.