Shri Kishor Govind Gohil @ Kishor Haddi Vs. Shri M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
maharashtra prevention of dangerous activities of slumlords, bootleggers, drug offenders and dangerous persons act, 1981 (amendment 1996) - section 3(1) - constitution of india, 1950 - article 22(5) -detention order - delay in supplying gujarati translation of detention documents - detenu's right of effective representation at the earliest opportunity under article 22(5) of the constitution violated -detention order set aside.; article 22(5) of the constitution of india provides that a person detained in pursuance of a preventive detention statute shall be communicated by the detaining authority, as soon as may be, the grounds on which the order has been made and the detaining authority shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. it is well settled that grounds also include the material in support of the grounds. it is equally well settled that both the grounds and the material in support of the grounds should be furnished to the detenu at the earliest opportunity in a language which is intelligible to him and if this is not done, then the detenu's right to make an effective representation at the earliest opportunity would be relegated into an illusory one.;since in the instant case the letter for supplying the translation of the documents in gujarati language was sent on 31.7.2000 and it had been forwarded by the home department to the commissioner of police on 5.8.2000, and the translations in the gujarati language were only furnished to the detenu on 18.9.2000, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner - detenu's fundamental right, guaranteed by article 22(5) of the constitution of india, of making a representation at the earliest opportunity, has been violated. - - it is well settled that grounds also include the material in support of the grounds. it is equally well settled that both the grounds and the material in support of the grounds should be furnished to the detenu at the earliest opportunity in a language which is intelligible to him and if this is not done, then the detenu's right to make an effective representation at the earliest opportunity would be relegated into an illusory one.vishnu sahal, j.1. through this criminal writ petition preferred under article 226 of the constitution of india, the petitioner-detenu kishor govind gohil @ kishor haddi has impugned the order dated 11.7.2000, passed by the first respondent, shri m. n. singh, commissioner of police, brihan mumbai, detaining him under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the maharashtra prevention of dangerous activities of slumlords, bootleggers. drug offenders and dangerous persons act. 1981 (no. lva of 1981) (amendment 1996).the detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 11.7.2000, was served on the detenu on 15.7.2000 and their true copies are annexed as annexures a and b respectively to this petition.2. a perusal of the grounds of detention (annexure 'b') would show that the impugned detention order is founded on one c.r., namely, c. r. no. 53/2000 under sections 387 and 506(ii) of the indian penal code, registered on the basis of a complaint dated 21.3.2000, filed by one smt. malan marathe at the agripada police station and the in-camera statements of two witnesses, namely, a and b, which were recorded on 20.5.2000. since, in our view, a reference to the prejudicial activities of the detenu stipulated in the said c-r. and the in-camera statements is not necessary for the adjudication of the solitary ground on which this petition deserves to succeed, we are not adverting to the details pertaining to the said c. r. and the said in-camera statements.3. we have heard learned counsel for the parties. although in this writ petition mr. u. n. tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-detenu has pleaded a large number of grounds, running from grounds 8(a) to 8(n), he has only pressed before us a solitary ground, namely, that pleaded as ground no. 8(13). on which ground alone, as observed by us earlier, this petition deserves to succeed.ground 8(b), in short, is that on 31.7.2000 the petitioner through his lawyer forwarded a letter to the state government to furnish him immediately documents in gujarati language to enable him to make an effective representation to the competent authority. it has been averred in the said ground that translation of documents in gujarati has not been furnished to the petitioner and consequently his right to make a representation at the earliest opportunity has been violated. a copy of the letter dated 31.7.2000 has been filed as annexure e to this petition. mr. tripathi urged that it is not disputed by the respondents that the translation of the detention order, grounds of detention and the relevant documents necessary for making an effective representation, in gujarati language, were supplied to the detenu not at the earliest opportunity but very belatedly i.e., on 18.9.2000.4. ground 8(b) has been replied to in paragraph 2 of the return of mr. m. b. khopkar. desk officer, home department (special). government of maharashtra, mantralaya, mumbai. in the said paragraph mr, khopkar has admitted that the letter dated 31.7.2000. which was addressed to the secretary to the government of maharashtra (preventive detention), home department (special), mantralaya, mumbai. was received on the same date in the home department. it has been admitted in the said paragraph that the request made in the said letter was that the translation of the order of detention and the accompanying documents be furnished to the detenu in gujarati language. it has been mentioned therein that copy of the said letter was forwarded to the commissioner of police. mumbai, wide letter dated 5.8.2000, for necessary action.true to her customary fairness. ms. aruna kamath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, frankly and candidly stated that in pursuance to the said letter the translation of the documents in gujarati language was furnished to the petitioner detenu only on 18.9.2000.5. article 22(5) of the constitution of india provides that a person detained in pursuance of a preventive detention statute shall be communicated by the detaining authority, as soon as may be, the grounds on which the order has been made and the detaining authority shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. it is well settled that grounds also include the material in support of the grounds. it is equally well settled that both the grounds and the material in support of the grounds should be furnished to the detenu at the earliest opportunity in a language which is intelligible to him and if this is not done, then the detenu's right to make an effective representation at the earliest opportunity would be relegated into an illusory one.6. in our view, since in the instant case the letter for supplying the translation of the documents in gujarati language was sent on31.7.2000 and it had been forwarded by the home department to the commissioner of police on 5.8.2000. and the translations in the gujarati language were only furnished to the detenu on 18.9.2000. it cannot be disputed that the petitioner-detenu's fundamental right, guaranteed by article 22(5) of the constitution of india, of making a representation at the earliest opportunity, has been violated.7. in the circumstances, in our view, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained.8. in the result, this petition is allowed and the impugned detention order is quashed and set aside. the petitioner-detenu kishor govind gohil @ kishor haddi is directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case. rule is made absolute.