JUDGMENT - M.S. RANE, J.:---The petitioner in this petition has challenged the detention order dated 8-2-1994 issued and served by the 1st respondent, Commissioner of Police, Thane in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Said Act') read with Government Order, Home Department (Special) No. NSA. 2394/2/SPL. 3(B) dated 28.1.1994 with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

2. The detaining authority has relied upon the material normally called as grounds for detention which consists of (i) a case registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under sections 363, 384 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. for abduction of a businessman and a builder; (ii) an anonymous written complaint about the prejudicial activities of the petitioner and his associates of the activities of indulging in extorting ransom amounts concerned police agency which as will be pointed out hereinbelow also mentions the incidents of ransom demands made by the petitioner and his associates upon the businessmen who have made the said statements.

3. Before we proceed to note the grounds of detention relied upon by the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order it will be convenient to spell out the precise grounds of challenges levelled by the petitioner in assailing the detention order. At the outset it may be stated that while advancing submissions the reference is made and reliance is placed no various decisions of the Apex Court so also of this Court so also of this Court. Points with considerable significance have also been urged and agitated in the background and in the context of ratios of the judicial pronouncements on the subject. These aspects will be dealt with in details in the course of judgment. The grounds upon which the impugned order is challenged by the petitioner may be neatly summarised as under :

i) Delay in issuance and execution of the impugned order of detention;

ii) Inordinate and unjustified delay in consideration of his representation submitted before the Central Government-respondent No. 4 herein ;

iii) The alleged activities attributed to the petitioner and relied upon as grounds in support of detention order do not pertain to public order; and

iv) Placing reliance upon the material obtained in the form of "in-camera statements of the witnesses" as a ground of detention is illegal and mala fide exercises of the powers.

4. Before we consider the submissions on the aforesaid points in the light of the facts and circumstances is obtained in the matter herein and the various decisions referred to by both the parties it is thought necessary to notice the grounds of detention furnished alongwith the detention order by the detaining authority. The same are reproduced in verbatim because of the nature of challenge as referred to above.

"3(a). Complainant Lalchand Mohandas Gangwani aged 30 yrs. dealing in Embroidary Work is residing at 103, Kala Mandir Apartment, 1st floor, Vasansha Bazar, Ulhasnagar, Camp No. 5 alongwith his brother Ishwarlal. He owns room No. 11 and 12 in Barrack No. 1840 of section 38. He does the business of Embrodiary at the said rooms. He started constructing bunglow at the said place. On 18.11.1993 at 9.00 a.m. he attended his business as usual. On that day at about 10 a.m. you alongwith your two associates (1) Baliram Damu Bhoir, (2) Ganesh Kundalik Mhatre came in autorickshaw No. MWU/6610 to the above said business place and asked complainant whether his name was Lalchand. On confirming the name, you entaced him to accompany you on the pretext that you wanted to have some talks with him. Therefore, complainant's workers Prakash Mangalmal Motha and Jaipal Vishnudas Jariayani also followed him. When all of you came near Anantpuri Ashram you asked the complainant, "YE BUILDING KAKAM KISAKE CHALU HAI". Over th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document