Judgment:
Vishnu Sahai, J.
1. Heard Mr. Tejas Muzumdar for the petitioner, Mr. D.G. Bagwe for respondents Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and Mr. H.V. Mehta for respondent No. 3.
2. By this petition, the petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Mohammed Asif Rafique Shaikh, seeks to impugn the order dated 13th July, 1995, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, respondent No. 1 detaining the detenu under the National Security Act.
3. The prejudicial activities of the detenu necessitating the issuance of the order of detention have been detailed in the grounds of detention; a true copy of which has been annexed as Exhibit 'C' to the petition. Since in our view a reference to those grounds is not necessary for the disposal of this petition, we are not recapitulating them in this order.
4. The short ground on which counsel for the petitioner Mr. Tejas Muzumdar assails the detention order is contained in Ground 7(L) of the petition. The substance of Ground 7(L) is that the representation made by the petitioner to the State Government, though handed over to the Officers of respondent No. 4 in whose prison the detenu is being detained, for being forwarded to respondent No. 2, the State of Maharashtra, has till date not been forwarded to the said respondent.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the detenu had a legal right to make a representation to the State Government and it was also obligatory on the part of the latter to have decided it without any loss of time. Counsel for the petitioner also urged that since in the instant case the representation of the detenu till date has not been forwarded to the State Government, and therefore, not considered by it, there has been an infraction of his fundamental right guaranteed by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the impugned order of detention warrants to be quashed.
Ground 7(L) pleaded in the petition has been replied to in paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed by Mr. M.D. Ambade, Desk Officer, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph shows that it is not in dispute that the detenu's representation to the respondent No. 2 (State of Maharashtra) has not been forwarded to it. Since the detenu had a legal right to make representation to the respondent No. 2 and the latter was under an obligation to dispose of the same at the earliest and the same has not been done by it, there has been an infraction of the fundamental right conferred on the detenu by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
5. In the aforesaid situation, this petition has to be allowed. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned detention order dated 13th July, 1995 passed by the respondent No. 1 detaining the detenu under the National Security Act is set aside and it is directed that the detenu be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in some other case. Rule made absolute.